Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Solvent Abuse (Scotland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. David Marshall: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is rather unusual, to say the least, for a Bill that started its life as a ten-minute Bill to proceed as far as this stage and to have a good chance of becoming law. Only about 15 such Bills have been successful since 1945. Oddly enough, several of them have dealt with purely Scottish matters, as this Bill does. It has been suggested that because the Bill applies only to Scotland we should wait until suitable legislation covering England, Wales and Scotland can be drafted, but there is no reason for Scotland to wait. Scotland already has separate legislation for its education and legal systems and there is no valid reason for delaying the passage of the Bill on that ground.
If the Bill becomes law, it is to be hoped that before very long England and Wales will see a similar Bill introduced to deal with the problem of solvent abuse in those countries.
It is a privilege and an honour for a Back Bencher to get a Bill through the House. It is fair to say that it can be done only with the good will and support of all hon. Members, and that has certainly been so in this instance. In Committee there was almost unprecedented all-party support and unanimity. I place on record my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) for all the assistance, advice and encouragement that he has given me from the very beginning. I must also compliment the Minister, the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay), on the manner in which he has assisted, co-operated and supported the Bill. I thank all hon. Members who have acted as sponsors, who served in Committee and who are in their places today to support the Bill. I thank the officials in the Table Office and the Clerks, from whom I received invaluable advice.
The problem of solvent abuse is a cause of great public concern. Almost daily instances of the problem appear in the media. There are far too many tragedies as a result of solvent abuse. The problem is not confined to cities or to Scotland alone; it is to be found in rural areas and throughout Great Britain. It has increased greatly since 1981, and I believe that the substantial increase in unemployment and cuts in public spending, leading to lack of provision of amenities and facilities for young people,

have been major contributory factors. I admit that those are not the only factors, but they have had a considerable influence in bringing about the increase.
It is a problem which the previous low-key approach adopted by authorities has failed to combat; hence the justifiable need for a much higher level approach and for legislation to tackle the problem.
There has been a great deal of public interest in the Bill and I have received many letters of support from various community organisations and individuals both within my constituency and from many other areas.
Scotland has a unique system of children's panels to which young people under the age of 16 may be referred for, among other things, care, protection, guidance and treatment. Their problems can be discussed in informal surroundings with parents in attendance. The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, under which the panels operate, did not include solvent abuse as a ground for referral as at that time it was not a problem. The Bill, as amended in Committee, makes solvent abuse a ground for referral. I do not seek to make solvent abuse a punitive offence. I want to see the introduction of supportive and caring legislation that will encourage parents and youngsters to seek help with their problem.
If the Bill becomes law, it will be the first statutory recognition of solvent abuse as a major problem, and the first step is often the most important one. It will enable us to monitor the scale and extent of the problem. We shall see after a reasonable time what further steps need to be taken.
In a speech to the women's council of the Church of Scotland social responsibility department in Edinburgh on 29 April this year, the Lord Advocate said that the Bill had the Government's active support. As I said, I welcome that support. However, the Government could go much further without legislation — for example, by sponsoring an advertising campaign, similar to the anti-smoking campaign, warning youngsters of the dangers of solvent abuse. Sports personalities and people from the world of entertainment whom youngsters admire and respect could be used successfully to get the message across. Measures of that type would not need legislation.
The Lord Advocate suggested in that speech that groups of parents could influence local shopkeepers to exercise control over the sale of solvents to children. But why cannot the noble and learned Lord be more positive? What about licensing and prohibiting sales to under-16s? Why not the outright prosecution of shopkeepers who knowingly and deliberately sell solvents to youngsters and who, in some cases, for a price, supply plastic bags as well? Let us put those people out of business, or at least out of the business of supplying solvents to youngsters.
I commend the Sunday Post for its recent in-depth series on solvent abuse and for highlighting how easy it is for youngsters to obtain solvents. It is to be hoped that most of the shops mentioned will take steps to tighten up their methods of selling solvents. It would be interesting if the Sunday Post revisited those shops to see whether matters had improved and they had taken steps to deal with the problem.
I am concerned about the difference in figures of the numbers of deaths from solvent abuse, particularly in the Strathclyde region. In a writen reply to the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) on 1 March this year, the Secretary of State for Scotland listed six deaths in 1981. Yet the official report of the chief constable of


Strathclyde listed 11 male persons having died from solvent abuse in 1981. I hope that the Minister will explain why the figures differ and which is the correct one.
I am aware that other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate and are keen that the Bill should have a speedy passage, so I will not detain the House. The Bill is not the final answer to the problem. Indeed, it does not even touch on the problem of adults who abuse solvents, and sadly the number of such cases is increasing. I reiterate that the Bill is the first measure in an effort to combat this menace and to do something to help our young people. For that reason alone I commend it to the House.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The House should warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) because the Bill is for him a personal triumph and we hope that it will go a long way to helping resolve the problem with which it deals. It is unusual for a Scottish Member to have a ten-minute Bill become law, and I congratulate him warmly on that. I agree with him that this will not be the last measure or the final answer, but it is an important first step in dealing with the problem.
This issue has given rise to concern for a number of years. Indeed, in March 1979, during the closing stages of the previous Parliament, I tabled two new clauses on this subject in the belief that something needed to be done, though I was not certain that the way in which I proposed to tackle it was the appropriate way. At that time, four years ago, it had been confirmed by the Lord Advocate that about 40 cases had been reported in the previous 10 years, of which four involved the deaths of those concerned. He confirmed that there had been an increase in the number of cases reported to the police. Only last week the Daily Telegraph reported another death and, as the hon. Gentleman said, the number of deaths has increased in recent years.
The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing), describing the symptoms, said four years ago that persons intoxicated by solvent sniffing behaved as though they were drunk and that, as with alcohol intoxication, a small proportion of them displayed aggressive tendencies. Similarly, the Lord Advocate confirmed that 14 cases of glue sniffing involving aggression had been reported to him. It was that possibility of aggression which I believed first caused Mr. Jimmy Dempsey to raise the matter in the House; on 6 December 1968, in an Adjournment debate, he spoke about a tragic case in which a young person who had inhaled solvent lit a firework which was thrown at a 14-year-old who subsequently died of his injuries. In that debate Mr. Dempsey called for a prohibition on selling certain commodities to persons under 18.
That debate and the remarks of Mr. Dempsey prompted me to table the first of the two new clauses to which I referred. That stated that it should be an offence for a person deliberately to inhale solvents or other similar substances, it asked the Secretary of State to define certain substances and it said that it should be treated as an offence under class C of the control of drugs under section 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. With the knowledge that we now have, it is clear that that would not have been the appropriate way to proceed. The Bill before us is a much

better way to move forward because it involves a considerably less harsh approach, one which is likely to be more successful. Parents, teachers and members of the public appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said and will understand that the purpose behind the Bill is to give assistance to those in need of care and attention, and not just to have punitive measures. For that reason I am sure that the Bill will receive strong support from those most concerned.
The problem is how shopkeepers and retailers should deal with the matter. We first became widely aware of the issue when the case of Mr. Mohammed Malik was reported in The Scotsman on 10 February 1978. He had been charged with selling glue to 12 children
wilfully, culpably and recklessly, knowing that they would inhale it to the danger of their health and their lives.
The sheriff quite properly dismissed the charge on the ground that the complaint disclosed no crime known to the common law of Scotland. He said that either the High Court should deal with it by using declaratory powers or that Parliament should deal with it, and I think that we all agree that Parliament should deal with the matter. With that in mind, I tabled the second new clause, which specified that
it should be an offence to supply, whether or not as part of a commercial transaction, to any person under 18 years of age, solvents or similar substances which the supplier has reasonable cause to believe will be inhaled.
It became clear that a large number of different forms of legislation had been introduced in North America along those lines, and when speaking to that new clause I stated nine of those different forms. They were: that it had been made illegal intentionally to inhale for purposes of intoxication; that it was an offence to possess for purposes of inhaling; that it was illegal elsewhere to induce another person to inhale; that it was illegal to possess for the purpose of inducing another person to inhale; that it was unlawful knowingly to sell to a person for purposes of inhalation; that it was illegal to sell to a minor for any purpose whatever; that it was unlawful to sell unless a chemical deterrent had been added; that it was illegal to sell certain substances to a minor without the consent of the parent; and that it was illegal openly to display for sale.
There had been considerable problems with the application of those laws in the states of North America in which they were in force. The first was the problem of enforcing the law. Dr. Gellman, an expert on the matter, wrote in an authoritative article:
The main problem with this approach is that it is practically impossible to enforce. Determined sniffers will sniff despite the law and others will consider it a challenge to be defied.
There is still widespread doubt about how effective that was in North America. However, certain measures were introduced; for example, the Federal Trade Commission gave instructions to manufacturers to place warnings on glass chiller aerosols saying:
Do not inhale. Use only as directed. Death may result from inhaling this product.
In 1973, the United States Food and Drug Agency required on aerosols with a high percentage of liquefied gas a statement saying:
Use only as directed. Intentional misuse by deliberately concentrating and inhaling the contents can cause death.
The trouble with both of those measures was that they gave rise to a great deal of publicity and, if anything, caused inhalation to become even more widespread, and thus did not have the intended result. Both the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay), and the hon.
Member for Stiring, Falkirk and Grangemouth frankly admitted the dilemma which had been facing the Scottish Office under successive Governments in dealing with the matter. The Minister said:
If we give too much publicity, we may encourage the abuse. If we do not give enough, neither the parents nor the children will know how dangerous it is or the symptoms to look for. Therefore, there is and will always have to be some ambivalence in our approach.
The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth said:
Previous Ministers of both parties with responsibility for health have heeded advice that they should play down the problem and not say too much about it publicly as that would glamourise it and encourage more youngsters to take up the practice. We adopted that approach. We did not talk about it, publicise it or glamourise it, but still more people took it up."—[Official Report, Second Scottish Standing Committee, 23 February 1983, c. 14, 20.]
I hope that the Minister will consider the suggestion by the hon. Member for Shettleston about advertising in certain circumstances. I hope that he will weigh up all the different factors.
I am glad that a study is now being prepared by two researchers at Edinburgh university. I hope that the Minister will make the facts known fully to the House once the study is complete. The corporate approach adopted by Strathclyde regional council is extremely helpful. It knows at what level to pitch its approach.
I do not believe that any of us can be in any doubt about the serious nature of the problem. The expert for the Department of Health and Social Security, Dr. Dorothy Black, gave an admirable description of the symptoms of inhalation. She said:
Mild intoxication is achieved within a few minutes and may last up to 30 minutes… Initial euphoria may continue into a confusional state with disinhibition, disorientation and alteration in perception. These may progress to hallucinatory and delusional experiences, which may give rise to risk-taking or aggressive behaviour… Ultimately, because of the cerebral depressant effect of the organic solvents, there is increasing drowsiness, sometimes leading on to fits or unconsciousness. Vomiting may occur at any stage with the risk of inhalation and asphyxia.
In view of the disagreeable symptoms that follow inhalation of certain substances, there is a great deal to be said for retailers doing everything within their power to ensure that these substances are not sold irresponsibly. I hope that the Minister will take this matter up with the retailers' organisations.
During the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee I asked the Minister whether he would consider establishing a voluntary code of conduct. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that he would study the matter seriously. He also expressed gratitude to retailers who had assisted in this matter and had controlled the sale of such products to children.
There has been a certain amount of voluntary restraint by retailers. Mr. William Low in Cumbernauld has decided to sell solvents at cigarette kiosks only and he limits their sale to those people over 16. The Strathkelvin crime prevention panel has followed that initiative by persuading other local traders to co-operate in measures to control sales.
In Dundee, the Federation of Master Ironmongers in conjunction with the chamber of commerce has set out a code of practice for its members. I hope that the Minister will follow this matter up with vigour and ensure, if possible, that the idea of a voluntary code of conduct will

be pursued. Retailers can encourage restraint to help contain this evil and the Government should give them every possible encouragement.

Mr. Bruce Millan: I add my congratulations to those already expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on his Bill and the successful way in which he has brought it to this stage. I thank the Minister and all hon. Members who have facilitated its passage.
There is general anxiety about the problems and a willingness by hon. Members to find solutions to them. The Bill deals with an important aspect of the matter, but it is only one aspect. By itself, as my hon. Friend has acknowledged, the Bill will not provide anything like a complete solution. Successive Governments have found this problem extremely difficult to deal with. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) demonstrated that. We must not become paralysed into complete inaction because it is a difficult problem and say that nothing can be done. The Bill is a useful step.
I hope that the Government will try to eliminate abuses at the point of sale. A difficulty arises with the legitimate retailer selling substances that have a legitimate use when he cannot judge whether the substance is to be used legitimately or is to be abused. We know that there are cases of retailers who have behaved in an irresponsible and outrageous fashion. They have sold some of these substances in circumstances where it is plain that they will be abused and where the method of sale is designed to facilitate abuse.
A prosecution is taking place at the moment and I plainly cannot refer to it because it is sub judice, but I am delighted that there is such a prosecution. If we find that existing law does not allow successful prosecutions in cases where the facts are not in dispute but the issue is whether an offence has been committed, I hope that the Government will put that right by legislation that will make it clear that sale in such irresponsible circumstances is an offence. It would be another small step forward which would deal with another aspect of the problem even if it left aside the wider problem of retail sales. There are severe practical problems in that and I have a great deal of sympathy for the Government's view that it is difficult to draft legislation that will deal with the problem generally. Further such legislation would help to reduce the problem, but if we cannot deal with the problem as a whole, Bills of this nature which reduce certain aspects of it are welcome. That is why I am glad to congratulate my hon. Friend and all those who have assisted him with this legislation. I hope that if a general election does not intervene it will be on the statute book shortly.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: This is an important Bill and I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on its success. I believe that all hon. Members present know that when I was responsible for the passage of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) attempted properly to find a formula by which we could deal with the problem as a criminal offence.
As the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) and others have said, it is difficult to legislate about a substance that is so universally used. However, I have now come to the conclusion that the problem is of such an extent that we can no longer permit the concept that if we ignore it or whisper about it it will not magnify. The problem is no longer auto-suggestive by publicity. It is now an ingrained habit, a virility symbol, a chicken challenge and a scourge. I have received some letters this week from constituents of the hon. Member for Shettleston urging us to take some action.
A case in which I was involved only last week in Scotland showed that a large number of children between the ages of 10 and 15 regularly went to a known source which supplied them willingly and with alacrity. Had not that source suddenly closed, the parents might well have taken vengeance into their own hands.
Of all the points to attack, the most important is the point of sale. It is more difficult to attack the source of supply. I do not know whether adding to the list of noxious substances or putting warnings on everything from Brasso to petrol would have much effect. Warnings must therefore take a different form. In the first instance, teachers should warn the children. Parents, too, must warn their children. Parents should also be encouraged to advise the police of the source of any solvent obtained by their children for the purpose of abuse.
I see no reason why large retail outlets such as supermarkets in which goods are simply taken from the shelves and placed in baskets should not put up notices to the effect that certain substances will not be sold to anyone under the age of, say, 21. That procedure is followed by those who wish to remain within the law in relation to the sale of alcohol and cigarettes. It may be difficult to tell whether a 4ft 2in boy is under 18 or a youthful 23, so traders protect themselves by taking an age above which it is safe to sell.
I appreciate that some adults may be willing to buy these substances to supply them to children, but I hope that they will be caught by the next proposal, which I hope will fall on receptive ears. If the Minister cannot act on this, I hope that he will pass the matter on to the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General for Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West mentioned the case of Malik in which Sheriff Ervine Smith held that the offence as charged was not a crime known to the law of Scotland. Scottish common law has been able to adapt itself to the intervention of many forms of assault. It is the great benefit of common law that the common law of assault can be adapted. The common law of breach of the peace, too, can be and has been constantly developed. I hope that the Lord Advocate will use his statutory power to invite the High Court of Justiciary to declare as a crime the supplying of solvent substances to young persons in circumstances in which it is likely that the substances will be misused by deliberate inhalation.
It may be argued that that is a nebulous concept, but it is not in the least nebulous. Under the law of reset if a person has stolen goods in his possession the question for the court is whether the circumstances in which the goods were received — in this case, it would be the circumstances in which the person sold the goods—were such as to give rise to the inference that the person concerned knew that the goods were stolen—or, in this

case, intended for an improper purpose. For instance, if a chap comes into an ironmonger's shop and asks for six jemmies, eight screwdrivers and some gelignite, it is unlikely that he wants them to make a bonfire. It is not difficult to draw an inference in the case of seedy suppliers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West, has said, responsible suppliers are already taking action to protect children. We want to stop those who are deliberately profiting from this appalling scourge. To take another example, if children enjoyed drinking paraquat I am sure that speedy action could be taken under common law to prosecute people who sold that substance to children as an act of assault, a breach of the peace or some other manifestation of the common law that the courts could declare.
I refer to the common law rather than to statutute law because statute law pins one to a definition and in a matter as nebulous as this we do not wish to be pinned to formulas and definitions. The court should decide whether the circumstances demonstrate the offence in echo of the concept of reset.
I make those suggestions as a possible way forward to make this a criminal offence. This should be backed by strong and fierce advertising to make it clear that solvent abuse is not clever, grown-up, "with it" or anything like that, but sordid, painful, dangerous and self-destructive.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. Before calling the next hon. Member, I remind the House that we are debating Third Reading, so debate should be restricted to what is actually in the Bill. I am deliberately allowing a somewhat wider debate as there was no debate on Second Reading, but we are beginning to stray into a debate on the general subject, and it is my job to protect the other business for the day.

Mr. George Foulkes: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and not just for calling me. As I have a Bill on the Order Paper, I am entirely with you in your wish to protect later business.
I am pleased to follow the helpful and intelligent contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn). I am pleased, too, to add my congratulations to those already showered upon my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall). I hope that this legislation will not be lost if a general election is called and that my hon. Friend and the Government will be able to facilitate its passage through the other House. When elections are called, emergency Finance Bills and the like can be passed extremely expeditiously. Given the unanimous and overwhelming support for my hon. Friend's Bill, I am sure that we all wish the same to apply in this case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston is the first to admit that the Bill does not go far enough. In saying that, I do not underestimate its importance. As my hon. Friend said, the first step is the most difficult and in many ways the most important. Nevertheless, we must go further. As my hon. Friend and all who have spoken have stated, the statistics greatly underestimate the problem because they relate only to those cases brought to our attention or to the attention of the police. There are many more. I cite a startling instance. Last time we discussed


this in the Scottish Grand Committee, when I went to take the underground home from Westminster station the same day I saw within 100 yards of this Chamber two youngsters in a terrible state sniffing glue. That coincidence, so close to the House, brought the matter home to me. I was struck by the fact that no one seemed to be doing anything about it, although it took place in public and in the open so close to this place. I am sure that other people could cite many more cases.
The latest edition of SCOLAG, the bulletin of the Scottish legal action group, which hon. Members will have had circulated to them, says in an editorial on the Bill:
Mr. David Marshall MP deserves credit for enlisting through his Solvent Abuse Bill the expertise of Children's Hearings in combating the pernicious habit of inhaling 'volatile substances'. The Government too did well to assist the passage of the Bill. That is only a start, however. Reporters will soon be faced with the question whether 'compulsory measures of care' are likely to improve the situation of the child, or whether a warning letter to the child and parents will suffice.
That will be a difficult decision.
Social workers will have to work out a line of persuasion to change the habits of those who are placed on supervision. The outlook is not promising, for it seems that even when a child is in whole-time residential care those in charge either cannot or will not break the habit. A List D school headmaster recently admitted that 60 per cent. of his pupils were solvent abusers.
That is a startling and amazing figure.
A survey reported in the press on 14 April showed that 10 per cent. of children in residential care in Strathclyde were solvent abusers, the highest proportion in List D schools.
It is an enormous problem and it is to the credit of hon. Members here that we are beginning to realise it, perhaps a little belatedly.
Outside this House, in spite of my hon. Friend's efforts — and in spite of the efforts of the Sunday Post and others — to publicise the problem, many parents, teachers and social warkers still do not realise the extent of it. I have seen people shrugging their shoulders and asking, "Why is Parliament wasting its time on something as irrelevant as glue sniffing?" People do not appreciate that death can result and has resulted from glue sniffing and the sniffing of other solvents.
Without, I hope, straying from the substance of the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say that I agree with what other hon. Members have said about the need for further education on the question. I hope that you will allow the Minister to say something, if he wishes to, about the way in which the Scottish health education group can mount some kind of intensive campaign to bring home to parents the true facts about glue sniffing. If it cannot be done directly to the children, as the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire suggested, it should be brought home to parents and teachers, so that they can pass on the message, together with youth club leaders, social workers and anyone in touch with young people, because there is still a lack of awareness of the extent of the problem.
I agree that further legislation should be considered, and I accept the arguments from the Conservative Benches as to the need for control at the point of sale. I know that it is difficult because of the large variety of substances involved. They are not all used for improper purposes and ought to be available to those who will not misuse them. It is extremely difficult to know whether they are likely to be misused.
I place a little more faith than the hon. and learned Member does in the use of the words "noxious

substances". One of the new clauses discussed during the proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill covered that aspect and it still merits some consideration. I am sure that it is possible, with such a large amount of chemical and other research being done, to produce a substance that could be added to most of the inhalants so that they would either be impossible to inhale or so awful that people would be physicllly repelled by them.
I hope that the measures in the Bill, and any further legislation, will be applied to the whole of the United Kingdom, because it is not merely a Scottish problem. We are dealing with it in a peculiarly Scottish way because we already have children's panels and hearings, but the problem should be dealt with in a parallel manner in the rest of the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston was very generous to the Minister, and so was SCOLAG in its editorial. I agree that the Government have clone a good job in supporting my hon. Friend's Bill. However, I should like to break the consensus slightly for a moment and say that perhaps it is a guilty conscience that makes some Conservative Members so eager to support the Bill.
The cause of glue sniffing should be examined. Why do people turn to glue sniffing? I accept that glue sniffing has an effect which people find pleasing initially, and that they are unaware of the long-term damage—not always so long term—of glue sniffing, but many young people are turning to glue sniffing and other kinds of distraction because of their despair and despondency. They are aware of the impossibility of finding a job, with the very high rate of youth unemployment. That is the truth; that is what is happening. When I talk to young people I see their despondency and despair about the future, and particularly about jobs. Those feelings are spreading like wildfire among young people.
The imposition of public expenditure cuts means that alternative facilities such as sport and recreation are not being expanded and developed to provide much more healthy alternative attractions for young people. The editorial in SCOLAG says:
A graffiti artist in Dundee's Hilltown has inscribed the chilling message `Sniff glue and die happy'. To the writer there is nothing to linger for in Mrs. Thatcher's Britain. An express route out of it—destination unknown—is a more appealing prospect.
That is what our young people are saying and writing. It is a terrible indictment of Britain in 1983 that young people are turning to glue, to lighter fuel and other kinds of inhalation for their kicks. It is a terrible indictment of our adult society. Above all, it is a terrible indictment of the Conservative Government—

Mr. Fairbairn: To what Government and set of circumstances does the hon. Gentleman attribute the phrase, "See Venice and die"?

Mr. Foulkes: I am sure that if I were to stray down that road, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would rule me out of order. It would also put the Second Reading of the Age Discrimination Bill in great jeopardy. I have made my point. It is a very serious one, and nearly 4 million people outside will echo my assertion that despair and despondency exist.
I should like to end on a generous note. The Government are to be congratulated on at least recognising that something should be done urgently, and on supporting my hon. Friend's Bill.

Sir Russell Fairgrieve: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) but I am sorry that he spoiled a good speech by introducing a totally spurious political point. He knows perfectly well that the subject is far too serious to be made a party political issue. On the question of care, he also knows that the Government, in every year since they have been in office, have spent more money in real terms than the Labour Government in the areas of health and social work, which are closely connected with the purposes of the Bill.
I join those hon. Members who have complimented the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on introducing a very necessary measure. We are grateful to him for the work that he has done individually and in Committee to get the measure on the statute book. I hope that it will get on the statute book, whatever the election timing may be. I also pay tribute to the late Jimmy Dempsey for the work that he did in this House year after year on this and allied subjects. It is a great pity that he is not here today.
I am not too sure about the matter of warnings and notices and how that aspect of the problem can be dealt with. After all, there is almost nothing that one can buy that is not capable of causing harm. For example, will knives have warnings saying that if they are stuck into a neighbour he is liable to get hurt? The list of substances that one can abuse is almost limitless. One could publicise a great list of products that children might never think of. There is almost nothing that one cannot vaporise, from boot polish to other substances that I shall not mention, because there is so little that I could leave out of the list. So we must be careful about warnings and publicity.
I agree with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire and others who have said that this is a far more serious business than we realise. May I add that there is a minor redeeming feature—although it, too, has a bad side—and it is that the evidence shows that it is non-addictive. It is not something that adults do. It seems to be confined entirely to youngsters, and they give it up. Nevertheless, one must remember that, although the solvent abuse may happen only with youngsters, it is clear that a certain number of people go on to far more serious drugs, having started on solvent abuse. I stress that aspect of the non-addictive nature of this problem.
The Bill underlines the beauty of a system that we have in Scotland. The hon. Member for Shettleston said that he hoped that the lead we give here would spread to England and Wales. Unfortunately, it cannot do so. In fact, it cannot spread to western Europe, where the same problems exist, because no one else has Scotland's unique system of children's hearings.
The system of children's hearings is 12 years old, and is unique to Scotland. I was Minister with responsibilities for health when the system was reviewed after its tenth anniversary. This unique system takes children away from the legal trappings and puts them into an environment of social work where something can be done to help. I have the privilege of being a member of the Council of Europe, and as a rapporteur I hope to introduce the subject of children's hearings, so that other countries in western Europe may know what we have done in Scotland. Although I agree that it would be a good idea for the thinking behind the Bill to spread, I regret that there is no

mechanism in England or Wales that is in any way similar to the children's hearings. That is why it is so important and unique and why we in Scotland can lead the whole of western Europe, as well as England, Wales and Ireland, in this method of dealing with the problem.
I conclude by again paying tribute to the hon. Member for Shettleston. I am glad that the Government are supporting the Bill. Let us again give another lead from Scotland.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on bringing the Bill to the House, and I am very pleased to be one of its sponsors.
I was somewhat disappointed at the disgraceful exhibition by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) who, with his usual desire for sensationalism—

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. McQuarrie: I shall not give way—made most disreputable comments. However, he did not say that the problem of solvent abuse existed under the Labour Government. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) tabled two amendments to a Bill that was going through the House during the period of that Labour Government.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. McQuarrie: No, I shall not give way. The fact that my hon. Friend's two amendments were not accepted at that time was unfortunate and the hon. Gentleman's remarks have soured the Third Reading of a commendable Bill, which the hon. Member for Shettleston brought forward as a private Member's Bill.
Solvent abuse has become a major social ailment in Scotland. The public in general, and parents of young children in particular, are becoming increasingly concerned at its growth. In my constituency, I have received many representations from my constituents saying that the Government should do something urgently to halt the appalling situation. So far, not enough controls have been placed on the distribution and sales of the substances that have such disastrous effects on the people who take to what is called glue sniffing, although many other substances apart from glue are being used, which has resulted in the tragic deaths of the young people who have taken to this practice.
The whole subject of solvent abuse requires much more investigation, to seek out not only those who indulge in its use but the methods by which these materials are so easily obtained. It would be impossible to ban everything that could be used as an inhalant, causing such damage to the users, but we must identify some method of control if we are to arrest the damage that these people do to themselves.
I do not believe that the source of the problem is linked to social deprivation or unemployment. Horrific stories are told of elderly persons claiming that they are being terrorised by glue-sniffing children from all grades of schools. In one case, the situation is so bad that a fence is being erected beside the elderly persons' homes to protect them from intimidation. On many occasions the young people have been so high on glue sniffing that they have had to be taken away for their own safety.
Teenagers sniff glue for kicks. They do not seem to realise that the minute they put their noses to the bottle or canister they are in grave danger. Only last week, we had the example of two respectable schoolboys of 15 who died after sniffing fuel from a decorative lamp. They were lively boys from a good family, and their parents had no idea that they were involved in such a dangerous practice.
Then there was the case in Glasgow last week of a 13-year-old girl who had a great future as a swimmer, but who died 23 minutes after she inhaled lighter fuel. Those are but three examples of the seriousness of the problem, and it is a problem that social investigators and sociologists will have to consider seriously.
In addition, curbs on the sale of these substances must be found. All such substances should be clearly labelled as to the grave danger of misuse. If possible, the manufacturers should study ways and means of producing substances that will remove the danger when there is abuse by young persons. In Scotland we have started to tighten up the controls in the amendment to the Social Work (Scotland) Act. I am also pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister has commissioned a study of solvent abuse and the measures that will be necessary to deal with the problem. I hope that the study will be carried out with the utmost urgency, as more young people are dying every year in Scotland from the effects of inhaling these solvents.
This is a short Bill, and it is one of the few private Member's Bills ever to reach this stage. The hon. Member for Shettleston has gone to great lengths to promote it in the House, and I know that he welcomes the all-party support that it has. Incidentally, I am disappointed that there are no representatives here today of the Liberal-Social Democratic alliance or the Scottish nationalists to give him additional support, especially from Scotland.
When the Bill was in Committee, the hon. Member paid tribute to the late James Dempsey, the former Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie, who started this campaign during his period in the House. I add my tribute to the late Member, because we often discussed the matter at length in the Lobby, and he was anxious that legislation should he brought in to try to solve this tragic problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Sir R. Fairgrieve) said, it is a great tragedy that Jimmy is not with us today to see this Bill go through the House. However, the hon. Member for Shettleston has carried on Jimmy's dedicated work, and the whole House will give him the support that he deserves.
This Bill is only the start of a process to find the answers to the problem. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on giving it Government acceptance and on providing money from Government funds for any expenses that may be incurred in ensuring that the Bill is properly operated by those concerned in local authorities, the children's panels and the police authorities.
Solvent abuse is not a problem only in urban areas. It causes as many difficulties in rural areas, such as my constituency, as I have seen time and again. It is, therefore, a matter of concern for all people in Scotland and one which we cannot duck.
The Government have given full backing to the Bill. I trust that it will have a safe passage through its remaining stages and that the media will highlight the fact that the Government. through the Bill, are taking the matter seriously. I warmly commend the Bill to the House.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): It gives me great pleasure to confirm the Government's support for the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall). I also offer him my sincere congratulations on the action that he has taken, but I shall not labour that point, because he was so thoroughly commended by both sides in Committee that it might be embarrassing for him to get too many other credits from the Government side.
In many ways, it is appropriate that a Glasgow Member should take such a Bill through the House. Although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) pointed out, solvent abuse is not solely an urban problem, it reaches its most horrific dimensions in some parts of Glasgow. I spent a morning at the Acorn street clinic close to the Shettleston constituency talking to children under 16 and young people aged between 17 and 19 who were hooked on glue and other substances and attended the clinic in an attempt to break the habit and to stop the downward spiral that could result in the sort of tragedy that we read about this week in the reports of a fatal accident inquiry in Glasgow.
The problem of solvent abuse does not arise in great numbers in my constituency, but the subject was brought to my attention long before I was elected to the House. A campaign was conducted here and in Scotland by the late Jimmy Dempsey and I echo the tributes that have been paid to him for his work in bringing the problem in his constituency and in the west of Scotland to the attention of hon. Members and the public.
I will not describe in detail the nature and scale of the problem of solvent abuse. It has been dealt with by hon. Members, and most people who are in the least interested are aware of the manifestations of the problem and the fact that it has a cyclical nature. For unexplained reasons, it blossoms in an area and, for equally unexplained reasons, it fades away, though that process is more prevalent in rural areas than in cities where the cycle is not so apparent. If children think that they have to be into the game because otherwise they will be out of the group, the problem takes off. If the young people find something else to do, the habit dies.
There is no doubt that solvent abuse causes great alarm to others in the community. On my visit to Glasgow I heard of housing schemes where old people in particular were almost frightened to go out at night because of the way that children behave under the influence of solvents.
I shall describe the action taken by the Government during the lifetime of this Parliament. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Sir R. Fairgrieve) took part in the debate, because if events occur as the press tell us that they may over the next week this may be the last occasion on which my hon. Friend addresses the House. It is appropriate that he should have spoken in a debate that is closely related to children's panels and the caring society. My hon. Friend held my job for two years and during all his time as an hon. Member he has been interested and involved in that aspect of the work of a Minister and Member.
As my hon. Friend said, in April 1980, in fulfilment of a commitment in the Conservative manifesto, he issued a consultative memorandum on the powers and procedures


of children's hearings. It was a major exercise which resulted in many comments from a wide range of bodies and individuals.
Among the numerous issues raised by the memorandum was whether solvent abuse, either on its own or as part of a wider ground of self-inflicted injury, should be made a ground on which a child might be referred to the reporter to a children's panel as being in need of compulsory measures of care. That suggestion, which reflected the level of public concern at that time, attracted a considerable response. A substantial majority of the 170 respondents to the memorandum favoured making solvent abuse, or self-inflicted injury generally, a ground of referral. However, because those views were, for the most part, expressed in broad general terms which did not take into account the practical difficulties which might arise — something which was given less attention than it should have been given—we decided that more detailed consultations should be carried out.
In December 1981, therefore, a consultative document on solvent abuse was issued to directors of social work, health boards, the police associations and a range of other interests concerned with education, the law and social work. The paper spelt out the problems to be faced and the possible options for dealing with them in some detail so as to encourage the submission of considered views on what was generally recognised to be a particularly intractable problem, and one to which there are no easy answers.
A total of 51 replies were received. They showed nearly unanimous opposition to the idea that solvent abuse should be made an offence, and very few of those who replied supported the creation of an offence of selling or supplying solvents to children—something to which I shall return later. There was, however, no unanimity on whether and how a child identified as being involved in solvent abuse might be referred to a children's hearing, although a clear majority agreed that the hearings could play a valuable role.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), who was Secretary of State for Scotland in the previous Government, recognised the difficulties that Ministers face in dealing with the problem. I tell the House frankly that I spent a considerable time in discussions with my officials before concluding that the best way forward lay in making solvent abuse a specific ground for referral to the reporter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed with that view, and in his statement on 16 December last year in answer to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Shettleston he stated our intention to seek the legislative changes necessary for that purpose. That is why we have been happy to support the initiative taken by the hon. Member in introducing his Bill.
I should mention in passing that our consultative memorandum looked at two alternative approaches to the problem. The first was that a child found abusing solvents might be referred to the reporter, after a series of police warnings, on the ground of being beyond parental control. That system was in operation in Strathclyde where the police authority used it as a method of taking habitual glue sniffers before the children's panel. The disadvantage was, of course, that the child might have been inhaling solvents for a considerable period before being detected on the two

or three occasions. It could also be argued that parents could not reasonably be expected to control the behaviour of a child some way from home.
The decision that we made in December and the law that will be made by the Bill will get round those two problems and will ensure that a child can be referred sooner to the reporter to a panel.
A second possibility was to amend existing legislation to enable a child to be referred to the reporter on the ground that he or she was engaging in conduct that could be injurious to health. We were, however, against creating a broad general ground of this kind, which would introduce a broad element of discretion and would be open to reinterpretation in the light of society's prevailing atitudes in the future, so that it might be used in circumstances that Parliament had never envisaged. We also thought that it would be a questionable approach to create so wide a ground when it is only solvent abuse that we are concerned with.
The Government remain of the view that solvent abuse is, of its nature, a foolish and potentially dangerous practice, which we are concerned to discourage by whatever action is likely to prove effective. I need not stress the potential dangers. Hon. Members will be aware of the tragic case that came before a fatal accident inquiry in Glasgow last week. It concerned a young girl who died after inhaling propane and butane gas. I should like to express my sympathy and the sympathy of the House to her parents. Such a tragedy naturally brings with it public concern that action should be taken to prevent it from recurring—for example, that shops should be regulated or prevented from selling products which can be sniffed to persons under a certain age.
We have been considering this issue carefully in particular in the light of remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) who asked me in Committee to consider the possibility of controlling by statute the sale or supply of solvents to children. I must tell my hon. Friend, who cannot be present today, and other hon. Members who have mentioned the matter this morning that we were by no means convinced that such legislation could effectively contribute to dealing with the problem. At first sight, of course, banning the sale of solvents to children appears an attractive proposition. There are, as hon. Members will know, statutory restrictions already on the sale of some substances to children — for example, tobacco and alcohol. But a number of difficulties arise when one considers the matter more carefully.
First, which substances should be regulated? Almost any volatile substance can be abused, although the most common product employed for this purpose is toluene-based glue. The range of household products containing substances which might be abused is very large indeed. Some of those are more dangerous than the glues—for example, the substance used in the Glasgow case to which I referred. It would be difficult to draw up a list of all the chemical substances which might be misused in this way, and even more difficult to compile a list of the products on sale which might contain them. Any list of "restricted" products would almost certainly be incomplete, and would have to be constantly updated as new products and new chemical constituents became available. If the list were confined to the more commonly abused substances, there would be the worrying danger that abusers would be found substituting other, and perhaps potentially more harmful,


substances for the forbidden ones. Hon. Members will agree that it would be distressing to discover that legislation designed to safeguard children and young people from the effects of solvent abuse in fact caused them to employ other and more dangerous substances.
There would also be the great practical difficulties for shopkeepers.

Mr. Milian: I apologise for intervening, as I missed the earlier part of the Minister's speech. A bewildering variety of substances come under the food and drugs regulations. Powers exist to deal with a wide variety of substances.

Mr. MacKay: I am aware of the complexity and welter of substances which are dealt with under the Food and Drugs Acts. We are dealing with products a little further away from foods and drugs. We are dealing with commonly used household products. Interestingly enough, in an article in today's Glasgow Herald, I noticed one of the problems that would arise. Mr. Geoffrey Isles of Strathclyde region said that his reservation about— in this case—marking some glue products as hazardous
might make them more identifiable to potential abusers.
The problem is not as easy as I would wish. If it were an easy problem to resolve, I can assure the House that I would have been here long since with all the i's dotted and t's crossed. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Craigton would have beaten me to it.
The number of shops affected would be large because of the number of products. Such a law would be difficult for the police to enforce. While it is true, as I have said, that there are already statutory restrictions on the sale of tobacco and alcohol, whose nature and uses are very much easier to define than those of solvents, the law is not exactly completely obeyed with regard to selling cigarettes to children under 16 or alcohol to youngsters under 18. We all recognise the worrying problem of under-age drinking. The law forbids the sale of alcohol to people under 18. While that may—and I hope does—keep the problem under control, it does not prevent it from being a real problem.
There are obvious practical difficulties for shopkeepers in telling the age of their customers. For example it is difficult to tell whether some youngsters are 14, 15, 16 or, indeed 17, 18 or 19. Another problem I came across when visiting the Acorn street clinic was that many of the under-16s who were already being pushed out of the shops by the ironmongers' own code of practice were using over-16s to buy the materials. The cut for the over-16 was a share in the glue that he had gone into the shop to buy. So one would not even be closing the door in that regard.
There would be considerable difficulty in formulating a criminal offence of sale or supply of solvent in terms that could be enforced and proved in court if necessary without making it bear unduly harshly on shopkeepers who might be accused of a crime. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) will appreciate from their practical legal experience how undesirable it is to seek to subject to a criminal sanction behaviour which may be perfectly innocent, or the entirely legitimate action of selling to an under-16-year-old a substance which, though capable of abuse, was to be used for a safe and straightforward purpose — perhaps the solvent for constructing a model kit or the gas for a camping stove. Thus, in fairness to the shopkeeper, it would appear

necessary at least to make the crime one of knowingly supplying an abusable substance to someone appearing to be under 16, and perhaps also requiring it to be demonstrated that the shopkeeper knew that the substance was to be abused.
We have considered this closely and have found it extremely difficult to frame an offence which would be effective in regulating any abuse, sufficiently well defined to render proof of the offence possible and enforceable by the court, and at the same time not so oppressive that it would make many completely innocent actions the subject of criminal sanctions. During the proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill I argued from the Back Benches that we might try to walk along that road. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire explained the difficulties of such a course. That highlights the problem. Even if one changes places, the difficulty remains.

Mr. Fairbairn: The difficulty with a statutory offence is that it is locked into definitions. But in common law there is no difficulty with regard to buying something which is likely to be stolen or selling something which is likely to be abused. I think that the common law provides the best hope.

Mr. MacKay: I listen to my hon. and learned Friend with interest. What I have said does not deny that the criminal law is not entirely irrelevant to solvent abuse. We have been discussing the possibility of a specific criminal offence. The common law, on the other hand, is a rather more flexible instrument, as my hon. and learned Friend mentioned both in his intervention and in his speech.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to a case currently before the courts in Glasgow. Two Glasgow shopkeepers have been charged at common law with culpably, wilfully and recklessly supplying solvents to children for the purposes of abuse. I cannot comment on the circumstances of the case, because it is at the moment sub judice, but I am sure hon. Members will wish to take note of it and to learn in due course of the outcome of the prosecution. Leaving that case aside, I am sure we would all agree that the deliberate sale of solvents to children in the knowledge that they are for the purposes of abuse is an activity which would rightly arouse indignation in the House and in the community at large and I certainly join hon. Members in condemning the practice wherever it happens.
I listened with interest to my hon. and learned Friend's view that might teach us something when it comes to considering this as a criminal activity. One of the encouraging things—hon. Members on both sides of the House mentioned this — is that the majority of shopkeepers have a thoroughly responsible attitude to this problem. In the Glasgow Herald this morning one big multiple store in Scotland announced that it will restrict the sale of solvent-based glues to customers under 18—or rather it will restrict their sale to over-l8-year-olds and will make it difficult for under-18-year-olds to buy the products. I know that many shops in the city and throughout Scotland have notices saying that they will not sell solvents to under 16 or 18-year-olds.
I am not saying that referral of a child to the reporter, and possibly by him to the children's hearing, will solve the problem overnight. It would be unfair to impose on children's panel members the expectation that they can so


deal with children appearing before them that we can confidently look forward to the disappearance of solvent abuse. That would be to misunderstand the complex character of solvent abuse.
The appearance of a child at a hearing, while it may assist and supplement, cannot replace work that has been developing for some years in counselling and education, involving the health professionals, the police, the schools and the social workers. It should rather be viewed as a unique opportunity to explore constructively in an informal setting the personal problems that a child may have, and may be seeking to escape from by persistent solvent abuse. There may be wider family problems. The children's panel—either the reporter or the members of the panel — will help to reinforce the parents by emphasising to them the need for them to discipline and look after their children. Parents must ensure that their children do not fall into the habit of solvent abuse by being out late at night.
The hearing can bring an element of compulsion where that seems necessary, but there is no connotation of punishment. One of the advantages of the children's panel system, which only Scotland has, is that solvent abuse is not an offence ground but a care ground for referral to the panel.
Some regional authorities have treated solvent abuse seriously and carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) mentioned the work being done in Grampian. The chief constable there reported two years ago his concern at the upsurge of solvent abuse in the region. The matter was debated by the regional committees responsible. As a result, a working group of officials, chaired by the chief executive, was established to consider the best way of dealing with the problem. Their conclusion was that to set up a specialist unit in any one part of the region would not be the best approach. Instead, they supported the development of expertise by strengthening the existing network of services so that parents whose children became involved would have access to a discreet private handling of their problems. The working party reported that a multidisciplinary team had already been set up by the council at official level, including representatives of education, social work, children's panel, reporter, police and health board, and that a leaflet had been produced for guidance to the police.
In considering what further steps were required, the working party recommended that a specialist senior social worker should be appointed for a set period of time and that Voluntary Service Aberdeen should pursue that development.
The aim was that the person appointed should first of all try to identify those who are abusing solvents; that he should examine the level of advice that needs to be given to police and children to assist the prevention of solvent abuse and its early detection; and that he should determine the service that might be offered to those children after they had been identified. At the end of the project, which is aimed essentially at developing a practical response to solvent abuse within the Grampian region, the senior social worker would provide a report to the region and to the Scottish Office. The Government agreed to fund that pilot project with a grant of £50,000 from the Scottish

Education Department, and a senior social worker was appointed to the post at the beginning of March 1983. We shall be keeping closely in touch with developments.
Strathclyde has also carried out a great deal of work. It has produced literature on the subject for those most closely involved—parents, teachers, social workers and the police. It has selected some schools for pilot projects in education. It is desperately important that the teaching profession should realise the nature of the problem and recognise the tell-tale signs of children who abuse solvents. They must be prepared inside schools to help the children in danger.
The publicity that Strathclyde has given to the problem brings me to the question of the Scottish health education group, and whether there should be Scottish publicity about the problem. My mind is not closed to that possibility. For some years the House has taken the view that if the matter is publicised too much that may encourage its spread. It has spread despite that. We may now be at the stage where we must be more positive. It is a matter not simply of educating the children, but of alerting parents to the problem and to their responsibilities.
This reference to the opportunity for fully involving the parents in the problem leads me naturally to emphasise that, as my right hon. Friend stated on 16 December, parents have the primary responsibility and concern for their children. Professional help and advice is available for parents who discover that their child is a solvent abuser, and local agencies should encourage them to seek it and to ensure that it is readily available to them. But parents have a basic responsibility to know where their children are at any given time and what they are doing. They cannot abdicate that responsibility and then look to other agencies — statutory or voluntary—to deal with any resulting problems.
I exempt from that criticism parents who have tried, often over long periods, to help their children who have been persistent solvent abusers. They have experienced much heartbreak and disruption of family life. Nevertheless, all of us who are parents may need to look carefully at the strength of our relationships with our children, especially as they enter the difficult period of adolescence.
One of the most depressing things that I hear when I talk to parents of young children who have misbehaved—and I am referring to 8, 9, 10 and 11-year-olds—is, "I cannot control them." If parents cannot control children of that age, something is very wrong. I hope that the emphasis that we place on the problem today will help to get it through to parents that they have a responsibility for their children until they are 16, and indeed beyond that. My mother still thinks that she has responsibility for me. It is essential that we underline the fact that parents cannot simply say that Parliament, police and social workers should deal with the problem. We are there to help if parents fail in their efforts, but they must make those efforts.
Parents must look after their children and be involved with them. They must share in their activities and not simply think that because the child is out of the house they can do whatever they want and forget about what the child is doing. Unfortunately, that attitude prevails and society has a duty to counter it. That attitude is wrong and misdirected. While I do not minimise the risk to life and health that is associated with solvent abuse, the saddest aspect is that many children have nothing else to do in the


evenings because no one, not even their parents, is interested in them. They sit in a cold, draughty corner and sniff glue.
The Bill recognises the problem, as have the Government. As the hon. Member for Shettleston said, it shows society's disapproval of the habit. It is the first time that the House has done that through legislation. It gives youngsters and their parents the help and support of the reporter to the panel and, if necessary, the children's panel itself. It allows the House to underline the responsibility of every adult. Parents have a primary responsibility for the well-being of their children, but we all have responsibility for the well-being of all children.
All of us, whether or not we are parents, must face the responsibility and not pass by on the other side. We must bring abuse to the attention of the authorities, the police or social workers. If we have the courage, we should intervene ourselves and try to stop it if we see it happening before our eyes.
I welcome the Bill. I know that the House will give it a Third Reading. I hope that it is a sign to the public at large of the seriousness with which we view the matter. The hon. Member for Shettleston has achieved the rare distinction of having a ten-minute Bill passed into law. I hope that the Bill will help to counter the appalling problem of solvent abuse in our society.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Charities Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Order for Third Reading read.

Sir Angus Maude: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
From the packed Benches, the fact the Bill was not opposed on Second Reading, that no amendments were made in Committee and none are proposed today, one may hope that the Bill if regarded as uncontroversial. It is, nevertheless, important. It is simple in essence but the background is somewhat complex.
It is well known that the substantive Charities Act 1960 made considerable reforms in charity law and helped to deal with the problem of the multitude of small charities, which are mostly parochial and have either outlived their original purpose or, as a result of inflation or other factors, become short of the resources necessary to carry out their original task satisfactorily. It was hoped that a voluntary process would result in the amalgamation of local charities into larger bodies with larger resources, which might be able to perform charitable functions better. That was the hope of the Goodman committee on charity law and the old Select Committee on Expenditure, which considered the matter about 10 years ago.
There have been local and regional efforts to get voluntary agreement to the merging of parochial charities in neighbourhood trusts. The trouble has been that the cooperation of parochial authorities and trustees of charities has not been anything like as forthcoming as was hoped. One can see why. Local people feel that local charities that might have existed for hundreds of years should serve their small village or parish area and they do not want to be forced to merge into larger bodies of trustees, which would not have the interest of that small community so much at heart, and in which they would not be so closely represented.
Despite the efforts that have been made there has been little progress towards voluntary amalgamation. As a result, there is still an immense number of local charities that are too small to perform any useful function. Some may have incomes of £5 or £10 a year. That was a substantial sum three or four hundred years ago but it does not go far now. It is a complicated business for the trustees of those small charities to go to the courts to approve mergers of local charities and it means a great deal of work for the Charity Commissioners. It was thought that there should be some measure that would enable voluntary rationalisation to deal with those small charities. The only recommendation that was common to the Goodman committee's report and the Select Committee report was that charities of a certain age with small capital endowments should be permitted to spend capital sums at their disposal in pursuance of the charity's original aims and, if necessary, to wind themselves up having done so. Both committees recommended the small change in charities law contained in the Bill.
I am deeply grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have supported me and for the help that the Government have given me. This is a special occasion for me. I have been a Member of Parliament for nearly 28 years and, except during the two years when I was a Minister, I put my name down for every private Members' Bill ballot. The first time that I ever drew a place was in


my 27th year and the Bill was talked out on Second Reading. The second time, and in my 28th year—which will no doubt be my last here—I was fortunate enough to draw eighth place and introduced this Bill. It will be a great pleasure if, in what may be my last Session as a Member of Parliament, I am able to see this Bill on to the statute book. Although it is a small measure, it is useful.
The important point that I have tried to emphasise is that the Bill contains no element of compulsion. It has been objected that the Bill will result in many charities disappearing, but there is no compulsion on trustees either to spend the money or to wind up the charity. The responsibility is left where it ought to be—with local people in the area for which the charity was originally founded. Within certain limits, the trustees can act on the best advice that they receive and according to intelligent management of the charity's affairs.
We thought it right to impose some limitations, such as that in respect of land or other property, which was dealt with in section 29 of the 1960 Act. It was thought that special problems arose with regard to land, especially as a result of the rise in the value of property and land in the past few decades. It is a complex issue on which the trustees of a small parochial charity need expert advice as it would be easy for them to sell at far too low a price, thus not getting as good a bargain as they might. We thought it right that they should apply to the Charity Commissioners or the courts for an order to enable them to sell landed property. Nevertheless, the restriction applies only to the sale of land or property. Once they have an order which entitles them to sell such land or property, the proceeds are at their disposal to spend according to the original purposes of the trust. There will be some trusts that cannot carry out the benefactors' wishes because those purposes no longer exist in modern life. In that case, the trustees, under the cy-près process, must get permission to divert the funds to a new purpose.
However, I doubt whether that will amount to a high proportion of existing charities. Many charities that provide money for prizes at local church schools on a comparatively small income carry out a useful job, and I hope that they will continue to do so. In those cases, the trustees are under no obligation to divest themselves of their assets and can continue happily. However, in some cases it would be impossible for trustees to spend the capital for the original purpose of the trust because that purpose no longer exists.
Some years ago I became vicar's churchwarden in a small parish just before the process of parish amalgamation got under way. The vicar was elderly and historically minded, and had done much research into the history of the parish and his church. One day he came to me and said that he would welcome my help with a problem. He said that many years previously a benefactor of the parish had left a small parcel of land to the church, the proceeds from which were to provide for the maintenance of the sanctuary lamp in the church. He told me that on old maps the land was referred to as the "Lamp Ground." He complained that the land had been alienated from the church, and hoped that I, as a Member of Parliament, could do something about it. I asked him when the alienation occurred. He thought for a little while and said, "I think that it was some time in the reign of Henry

VI." I explained to him that it was a little late for me to take action. That is an example of the way in which the assets, endowments and purposes of charities can change.
There is nothing complicated about the Bill. It does not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland because the Charities Act 1960 applies to Scotland and Northern Ireland only in the most minute way in respect of the repeal of some ancient and moribund statutes. The main charity laws in England and Wales are different from those of Scotland and Northern Ireland, and since my only purpose with this Bill is to amend the 1960 Act it is impossible to extend it to Scotland and Northern Ireland, nor would I presume to meddle in the affairs of those countries.
Some questions have been raised by those interested in charity law, by members of the public and by my colleagues in the House. The first relates to the figure of £1,000 that we have chosen. The Bill applies to charities with assets to the value of not more than £1,000, and by "value" we mean market value. Any court would interpret it as meaning that. It may be argued that the figure should be larger or smaller, but we believed that 1,000 was about right. Most charities with that amount of money might hope, if the money were reasonably invested, to receive an income of about £100 a year, which for most small neighbourhood charities is a useful and reasonable income. The trustees of such charities would almost certainly not wish to alienate their assets or to wind up the trust.
The other question asked was whether we should have inserted in the Bill a maximum income limit. That presented considerable difficulties, and it was pointed out to me that a charity might have invested in undated Government stocks, such as 2·5 per cent. consols or war loan stocks, many decades ago. If the stock was bought at par, it is now worth only a fraction of that amount, but the income from that small capital might be £100 a year or more. That would be a valid objection if there were an element of compulsion on the trustees to sell, but there is no such element in the Bill. It is entirely for them to decide, and in a case where the assets, if realised, would produce a small capital sum but the income is substantial most trustees would wish to carry on using the income for the original purposes of the trust.
I need not say much about the 40-year period, which was mentioned in the 1960 Act. It seemed a reasonable time to choose, because 40 years ago we saw the beginning of the period of high inflation when capital assets began to lose their value and the income from them ceased to go as far as it had previously.
There is provision in the Bill for the Home Secretary, by laying an order before the House, to increase the sum of £1,000 if that ceases to be a realistic figure. However, such an increase would be subject to the approval of Parliament, so there is no question that Parliament will not be adequately consulted on the matter.
The Bill makes a small but desirable reform of the charities law. It follows the recommendation made by the Goodman committee and by the Select Committee, and it leaves the responsibility for taking decisions about local charities with the local trustees, which is where it should be. There is no element of compulsion, which would be wrong. The Bill will make life much easier for many worried and frustrated trustees of small charities.

Mr. Richard Page: A Back-Bench Member who puts down his name for the lottery of the private Members'Bill procedure does so more in hope than in anticipation. I have put down my name only five times, each time with hope but not expectation, and I have been amply justified in following that course of thought. We must congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Sir A. Maude) on his wisdom, foresight and skill, and on his good fortune in having his name picked in the ballot, not just once but twice.
All of us have a mental sheaf of Bills that we would like to introduce in the House. I thank my right hon. Friend for plucking this one out of my small mental sheaf of Bills. I have had an interest in this subject for some time. My right hon. Friend's Bill will go a long way towards satisfying the concerns and interest of many people. The only thing that disturbs me is that I may have to wait 27 or perhaps 28 years before I have the opportunity to introduce my Bill to the House. The thought of another 22 unsuccessful years does not fill me with joy.

Sir Angus Maude: One gets used to it.

Mr. Page: That is absolutely true. One gets used to frustrations and disappointments. I suppose that that is part of the process.
The interest in charities has occupied Parliament for many a year. In the short period since the Charities Act 1980, the Expenditure Committee in 1974–75 took an interest in them, which led to the Goodman inquiry in 1975–76. Even in the other place only last month there was a debate on the modernisation of charity legislation.
My right hon. Friend, with his long experience and skill, is to be congratulated on introducing a Bill that is easily understood. To be able to do so is an art in itself. He has been wise in dodging the reefs and shoals of argument that abound whenever the scope and operation of charities are under discussion. I am sure that my right hon. Friend's Bill will pass speedily through the House. There are no Opposition Members here, and I can only attribute their absence to their utter and wholehearted support of the measure. I think that my right hon. Friend will find that when this Bill becomes an Act it will receive many expressions of gratitude from trustees, and in some cases frustrated trustees, who will now find another avenue through which they can operate their trust.
I shall make a few comments in support of the Bill. It must operate within, and in accord with, the general principles of charity law. There are four points on which the Bill should touch and with which we should be satisfied. I am not saying that they are the definitive four principles. They are just four important points.
The first is that we must see whether the area and operation of a charity command the general support and agreement of the community. Secondly, a charity must operate via charity law, and it should be flexible to meet changing circumstances. Thirdly, the wishes of the donors to the charity should be given consideration and respect. Finally, the funds of the charity must be correctly administered and the role of the trustees has to be seen to be one of propriety and correctness.
My first point was that a charity should operate in accord with the general approval and understanding of, and to the benefit of, the community. A more casually

drafted Bill could lead to questions of what is not a charity and a veritable minefield of definitions. My right hon. Friend, with his skill, has not strayed into that area.
The Bill recognises that the community needs change. With the material advancement of society, we can all see that the improvements in state welfare have overtaken the original purpose of setting up many of our charities. I think that the House and the country will agree that many charities have now outlived their usefulness in satisfying peoples needs or, with the erosion of the value of money, have become impossibly expensive to administer, in terms not only of expenditure but of time, which is completely out of proportion with the benefit that is given. Inflation ruins many things. It ruins businesses and the operation of many charities.
Many charities are quaint, with their touches of a bygone age. I assure the House that they can become a veritable headache in their operation. It is right to examine the role of the charity and assess its usefulness and also to give authority to the trustees to be able to move, enlarge, or, if necessary, close down. This is where the Bill does a service.
My second point was the need to give flexibility to charities and the trustees. The Bill achieves that aim. It gives more flexibility to the present charity law. For that reason it will be much welcomed. I hope that my next observation will not be misunderstood because I do not want to imply that we are suffering from too much charity, but the House might like to know that in 1978 there were 129,212 registered charities, and that number was growing at the rate of 3,000 to 3,500 a year. Now I understand that there are approximately 139,000 charities. Such a growth rate will be envied by many commercial concerns. Possibly the point that concerns me most about the figures is that half the charities have an annual income of under £100. On examination, we find that many of the projects are outmoded and time has made them redundant.
If one spends a few hours reading the annual reports of the Charity Commissioners one finds an occasional fascinating historical insight into the needs of society in past years. The House will be glad to know that it has become unnecessary to provide accommodation for two female lepers in Cirencester. I shall not lead the House down those historical highways and byways because the examples are long, though interesting, nor do I suggest to my hon. Friends that they should cull through the annual reports by the Charity Commissioners, because I assure them that they are not fascinating reading, important as they are.
Such charities are extremely expensive to operate. Sometimes they search desperately for qualifying recipients. In smaller cases, the time and administration outweigh any benefit from the charity. My right hon. Friend's Bill must be an aid to simplification, but, as he emphasised and as I should like to emphasise, there is no compulsion on the trustees. It is their decision whether they take advantage of the provisions in the Bill.
My third point was about respecting the wishes of the donors. In choosing 40 years, my right hon. Friend has made a stab in the right direction. The period could be 30 years or 50 years. I do not think that many donors would be still around after 40 years. I accept that 40 years is a long period for inflation on the historical time scale, but it would be a sufficient time for that charity either to have proved its worth or to have outlived its usefulness.
It is important that the funds of a charity and its administration be safeguarded. To be a trustee is rather like being a director. To be a director of ICI involves certain responsibilities, and to be the director of a small company—for example, working with one's wife in a corner shop—involves other responsibilities. I suggest that the two areas of responsibility are vastly different. When trustees are dealing with a national concern they have recourse to advice, current legal opinions and day-to-day experience of large and weighty matters. The trustees of smaller charities do not have that experience and they are not able to call on the same quality of advice.
I know that the Charity Commissioners produce advisory leaflets which underline the role of charities and the trustee operation. When the Bill is transmuted into an Act I hope that the commissioners will produce an advisory leaflet to give trustees further guidance on how the Bill may be used to their advantage. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon has said, trustees can be involved in the tricky area of property disposal.
I think that my right hon. Friend has taken a wise step in choosing the figure of £1,000. It is one that will be readily identified by many trustees, and the House will have the ability, in the fullness of time, to amend that figure after due and proper consideration.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said in Committee, the Bill falls four square within the principles of charities and my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on bringing it forward. He has performed a valuable service for the trustees of charities. I sincerely hope that I do not have to wait another 22 years before I can introduce a Bill.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): It would have been a pleasant task to welcome the Bill on behalf of the Government and to wish it a fair wind into law, whoever had introduced it. My benevolence would have extended even to the other side of the Chamber had an Opposition Member been prepared to introduce the Bill, such is the quality of the measure. On this occasion it is a particular pleasure to welcome the Bill. This is an occasion for going beyond the normal courtesies of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) has already paid my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Sir A. Maude) a genuine tribute, and it is a real pleasure to welcome the Bill because my right hon. Friend has introduced it.
As I said in Committee—I think that my words bear repeating on the Floor of the House —my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon has had a most distinguished career in the House and in British politics in general. Apart from being a respected Member of this place, he is a well-loved Member. That feeling is not confined to the Government Benches. I feel that it extends across the Floor of the House. He has managed to be a most distinguished polemicist both within the House and outside and has greatly increased public understanding of a number of key issues through having the enviable facility which, alas, I do not have—even if I am in this place

for 28 years I probably never will have it—of being as lucid in writing as he so manifestly is, and as he demonstrated this morning, in speech.
My right hon. Friend drew attention to a rather unusual series of events after all his years in this place. He has been able to introduce the Bill only in his last few months in the House, the Bill having been given a fair wind. I remind my right hon. Friend that he was about half way through his parliamentary career when we first met, when I was a minor functionary in the Cambridge university Conservative association. My right hon. Friend came to speak to the association and it was then that I had the first opportunity of hearing my right hon. Friend's lucidity on a public platform and the rapier-like wit that he brings to public debate, which enlivens such occasions. In the ensuing years I have had the opportunity fully to appreciate those qualities.
It was even more of a pleasure, on the occasion when my right hon. Friend visited Cambridge, to discover at dinner after his address what an amusing companion he is. Little did I think as I sat at dinner as a callow young undergraduate that it would fall to me to welcome the last major act of my right hon. Friend after a long and distinguished career in the House. I hope that he appreciates that in making these comments about him and the contribution that he has made to parliamentary life I am fulfilling more than a mere duty.
I shall substantiate what my right hon. Friend has already said about the Bill, he having been ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West. It was through the courtesy of the House that the Bill was given an unopposed Second Reading without a debate some weeks ago. It was only that which allowed the measure to proceed to this stage. We are all grateful to the House for taking that course. It would have been open to any hon. Member to have blocked the Bill's progress. However, everyone thought so well of it that no one did.
The Bill went into Committee, where it is right to say that there was only a brief debate. That was because all those present agreed with it. There is a case for saying that legislation should not pass through the House without it being clearly set on the record exactly why the measure is necessary. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend chose to explain with great clarity what motivated him to bring the Bill forward, what he thought it would do and why even the small ripples of controversy that it has engendered are not justified. I hope that the House will bear with me if I try to set the Bill in its context from the Government's standpoint, and explain why we genuinely believe that it will effect a useful reform of charity law, which will be none the less useful because it is uncontroversial.
Charity law as a whole is not uncontroversial. There is increasing public recognition that there is rather more to charities than the way in which they impinge on the lives of most of us as we go about our business. Few of us can walk down our local high street on a Saturday without seeing collecting boxes for one or other of the major charities. Charities come to be associated with the large and prestigious charities that most people connect with the term "charity". There are a few dozen charities that are household names, to which the public contribute in a large or small way according to their means and inclinations. There are many charities that rightly attach a great deal of importance to keeping their name before the public. There is a wide range of events in almost every locality,


including sponsored swims and sponsored walks. They are all organised with the aim of raising money for the large charities.
I do not suppose that anyone who has considered the controversy over the position of some religious sects on the charities' register any longer believes that charities are confined to the large and estimable charities. Anyone who thought that would be wrong to think that the large active charity was in any sense a typical charity in Britain. We had some insight into that in the helpful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West. There are no fewer than 144,000 English charities currently registered with the Charity Commissioners. It has been reliably estimated that well over one half of those have an income of less than £100, so the typical charity is a very different beast indeed from the household name charities with which we are all familiar.
The reason for that is that small charitable giving is at the heart of the development of charities in this country, far more so than the very large charities, which are a quite recent development. Small charitable giving has been at the root of the development over the centuries of English charity law. Prior to the 16th century the Church was the prime source of philanthropy to the community. During the 16th century charitable giving was centred on the parishes. The famous preamble to the statute of charitable uses of 1601 lists charitable purposes as follows:
Whereas lands, tenements, rents, annuities, profits, hereditaments, goods, chattels, money, and stock of money, have been heretofore given, limited, appointed, and assigned as well by the Queen's most excellent majesty, and her most noble progenitors, as by sundry other well disposed persons: some for relief of aged, impotent, and poor people, some for maintenance of sick and maimed soldiers and mariners schools of learning, free schools, and scholars in universities; some for repair of bridges, ports, havens, causeways, churches, seabanks and highways; some for education and preferment of orphans; some for or towards the relief, stock or maintenance for houses of correction; some for marriages of poor maids; some for supportation, aid, and help of young tradesmen, handicraftsmen, and persons decayed; and others for relief or redemption of prisoners or captives, and for aid or ease of any poor inhabitants concerning payment of fifteens, setting out of soldiers and other taxes; which lands, tenements, rents, annuities, profits, hereditaments, goods, chattels, money, and stocks of money, nevertheless, have not been employed according to the charitable intent of the givers and founders thereof, by reason of frauds, breaches of trust, and negligence in those that should pay, deliver and employ the same.
Charitable trusts are characterised in common law by two features. First, charitable trusts, unlike other trusts, do not fail if they offend against the doctrine known as the rule against perpetuities. Charitable trusts may expressly state that they are intended to last for ever—which not even parliamentary careers do in the real world — or, more usually, they are not given a finite duration. That poses problems that lie at the heart of the Bill. Secondly, and perhaps more relevant, charitable trusts, unlike other trusts, are not allowed to fail because of uncertainty about their objects or beneficiaries. As circumstances change over the decades, what would have been a valid and viable purpose for a charity at the time it was conceived becomes less so as the years roll on.
The law has been developed for a long time to try to meet that point and to respect the charitable intentions of the original donor. Charity property may be applied, as the lawyers say, cy-pres; the purposes of the trust can be altered in certain circumstances so long as the new purposes are as near as possible to the old ones. In that way

it has been possible to modernise the objects of many charities through schemes made by the Charity Commissioners.
It is also possible to bring together small groups of charities within a parish, or across several parishes, with similar objects and for the Charity Commissioners to make, at the request of the trustees, a scheme for their administration as one charity. The latest figures available from the Charity Commissioners show that in 1982 they made 852 such schemes, and 307 of those amalgamated or grouped 1,422 small charities. As my right hon. Friend indicated, small parochial charities are particularly liable to find difficulties in working effectively in isolation. Since the Charities Act 1960 came into effect, making provision for local authority reviews of local charities, many have been amalgamated or grouped as a result of those reviews.
We should all like our charities to retain, wherever possible, the forms in which they were endowed, but we must recognise that that is not always an appropriate or realistic course to adopt. There are in existence many parochial charities whose income is too small to be useful, however hard one tries to dispense or arrange matters. We must also consider the insidious effects of inflation, which has damaged charities as much as many other aspects of the community. The fall in the value of money has meant that many endowments, once sizeable, are now worth very little. Many charities are known to have an annual income of less than £1.
Such charities were perhaps inadequately endowed in the first place so that they have no chance today of reflecting modern day values. Rent charges arising out of land are a typical example because, when redeemed, they often give a total endowment of perhaps £20 to £40. Or problems can arise through bad investment policies so that the fund, which may have been adequate ab initio, has become irretrievably depleted in value. And even where it is possible to be grouped with similar charities in the same area, the cost of making schemes for those charities —the mechanism of the administration to try to make them viable — may be out of all proportion to their income, and trustees are often put off by the scheme-making procedures, which can be lengthy and laborious.
We must also bear in mind that we expect the Charity Commission to look after the small charity as much as we expect it to look after the large one and it is a relatively expensive task which falls on the public purse. The Official Custodian for Charities has calculated that in 1980 a dividend of £1 or less was paid out on at least 7,000 holdings, but the costs of administration are there even though one is dealing with small sums of money. Nor should we forget the time and effort demanded of the trustees in administering such very small sums.
After what I hope has not been too tiresome a preamble —this is not a frequently ventilated area of charity law — I hope that I have satisfactorily established, in common with my right hon. Friend, the circumstances that have arisen to make us think it right that the trustees of such charities should be allowed to expend their charity capital as income, thus effectively winding up their charity. Those who have troubled with these matters have been aware of the problem for some time, because the Charity Commissioners described the problem succinctly in their evidence to the Expenditure Committee in 1975, looking at the accountability of the Charity Commissioners.
They had been asked whether there were any reforms to charity law not mentioned in their evidence that they would like to see introduced to make more effective the administration of charities. In their memorandum on the expenditure of endowments of very small charities, published as appendix 15 to the report of the Expenditure Committee in 1975, they said:
Our experience over many years during and prior to the holding of local reviews has been that it is frequently not practicable to combine small charities of this nature with those in an adjoining parish or parishes which might be more favourably endowed. Trustees are often reluctant to see the benefits of parochial charities extended to other parishes, particularly where a reasonably well-endowed parish is asked to combine its charities with a single very small charity in an adjoining parish. Nor do we feel that it is a satisfactory solution to combine a large number of small charities of this sort over an even wider area. In such a case even the combined income is still insignificant in relation to the catchment area and the administration of charities over a wide area is almost bound to become impersonal by comparison with a single-parish charity.
The memorandum went on to propose that the trustees of small parochial charities be empowered, within strict limits, to expend their capital funds. This suggestion found favour with the Expenditure Committee who suggested that legislation be introduced to enable the trustees of charities possessing only trivial funds to spend the capital of such funds for the purposes of the charity. It suggested that the donor should have been dead for a number of years. It envisaged such changes normally being made with the consent of the trustees, but felt that there should be reserve powers to act without their consent.
This recommendation was given weight by the publication in 1976 of another report on charities—the Goodman report. This was the report of a committee appointed by the National Council for Social Service—now the National Council for Voluntary Organisations—under the chairmanship of Lord Goodman to examine the effect of charity law and practice on voluntary organisations. After a thorough review of local charities, the modernisation of trusts and the progress of reviews, the Committee noted the Charity Commissioners' suggestion that small locally endowed charities might be permitted to spend their capital. The Goodman committee endorsed this view and recommended that power to expend capital should be given subject to appropriate consent by the local committee. It had in mind a permanent local committee to be established under the chairmanship of a representative of the Charity Commissioners to look after the continuing process of co-ordination between endowed charities and welfare services.
The Bill effectively carries this proposal into law—with an important difference which I welcome and to which I shall return in a moment.
It is necessary to make one or two other points central to the appreciation of the merits of the Bill which we hope to become law shortly. The Bill, as my right hon. Friend has said, would enable the trustees of charities with assets worth £1,000 or less to expend the property of their charity. The vital word here is "enable". I believe that this Bill will greatly assist the trustees of charities, the objects of which can often best be assisted by a once-off recourse to capital. A typical case would be the repair to a church roof, where the capital sum spent on one occasion may be more useful than the small amount of income it generates. I can think of similar examples, and I am sure that hon.

Members can, in the maintenance of other local amenities besides the church and its fabric—clock towers, town halls, museums, war memorials and the upkeep of roads and bridges. The list is long and encompasses all kinds of local charity. Small charities for the relief of handicapped or sick people may well wish to contribute towards the provision of special equipment or transport.
It is entirely at the discretion of the trustees whether they exercise the powers given to them under this Bill. This an important point to which I shall return later. The Government feel strongly that they would not support a Bill that would compel trustees to wind up their charities. We do not know how many trustees will avail themselves of the opportunity presented by the Bill. We believe that it is for the trustees to make up their minds about this. Compulsion would be an alien concept in the law on charities as it has developed over the centuries and, some might say, anathema to the principles of charitable giving.
Charity trustees are entrusted by law with the responsibility of administration in accordance with their trusts and in the manner laid down by their trust instrument. The Government have no wish to interfere with the independence of charity trustees. They value the contribution to the community made by thousands of people, who voluntarily administer these trusts in a caring and compassionate manner. They recognise how a locally based charity can be responsive to local needs at an individual and community level, in ways in which national organisations or statutory services cannot, nor can be expected to be.
I imagine that most hon. Members will be trustees. I serve as a special trustee of Westminster hospital. We all understand the important role of trustees. It is a vital way in which people within the community can add voluntarily to the benefits of the community by administering funds to the best of their judgment with the minimum of outside interference within the lines established by the original charitable donor.
The Government want those thriving local charities, which still have a viable contribution to make, to continue to flourish. They have no wish, however, to insist on the continuation of defunct charities whose financial and human assets could be put to better use elsewhere —financial assets, before the capital value dwindles still further and human assets in the energies of trustees which might be employed on purposes more beneficial to the community.
The trustees would have to spend the money on the purposes for which the charity was established, thus ensuring that as far as possible the benefactor's wishes will be respected until the last moment. Inevitably, under existing charity law, charities with outdated purposes would have to apply to the Charity Commissioners for a cy-pres scheme before they could spend their capital under the Bill. I am told, however, by the Charity Commissioners that this would only rarely be necessary as most have already had their purposes modernised.
There have been one or two queries about the Bill's provisions where the endowment consists wholly or partly of land, and it may be worth explaining this provision in detail. Clause 1(4) contains a saving for section 29(1) of the Charities Act 1960. It requires trustees to obtain an order of the court or the Charity Commissioners before carrying out certain transactions in respect of the permanent endowment of the charity. In particular, land forming part of the permanent endowment cannot be sold


without such an order. It ensures that transactions undertaken are proper, and, for example, not at an undervaluation. This section does not deal with the question how the proceeds of the charity's land should be dealt with. The Bill does this. The result of the Bill will be that if the charity is within the Bill's limits, the proceeds of sale can be spent instead of having to be reinvested. But the sale is still subject to the provisions of section 29(1); clause 1(4) accordingly provides that section 29(1) is to be unaffected.
The effect of this is that a charity with a permanent endowment of land worth less than £1,000 is, as regards the Bill, in no different a position from a charity whose endowment is not in the form of land. At present, a charity with a permanent endowment of land worth less than £1,000 is subject to two different rules: one is that it needs an order to sell the land, the other is that it cannot spend the proceeds of sale and must re-invest them. The Bill deals only with the second rule, and therefore leaves the first unaffected.
I am glad that in the form the Bill has been presented to this House my right hon. Friend has not thought it necessary to include the permission of the Charity Commissioners as a preliminary step in winding up small charities. As I said a moment ago, when this measure was first mooted, for example by the Expenditure Committee, it was thought that its permission should be obtained before the capital could be expended. I think it is right, as does my right hon. Friend, that this decision should rest with the trustees. To introduce another layer of decision-making, in the shape of the authority of the Charity Commissioner, would, I fear, be to introduce an unnecessary administrative complication. One of the purposes that lies behind this useful Bill is to minimise administrative complications.
The Charity Commissioners recognise that it is the trustees who have the most detailed knowledge of and interest in the charity and its future, and I know that they share the view that the trustees' wish for the disbursement will be sufficient.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West asked about the upper limit of £1,000. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon would be the first to recognise that any figure is bound by its very nature to be arbitrary to some extent. Nevertheless, in a world in which one has to make the best guess because some limit must be imposed, after much thought and his customary courtesy in consulting the Department, my hon. Friend's figure is, I beleve, appropriate to the purposes of the Bill. As my right hon. Friend said, it is important to remember that the Secretary of State will have power to alter that figure in the light of any change in the value of money. We all hope and pray that inflation is under control and that the banana republic inflation of the 1970s is now behind us. Nevertheless, it is right that that saving provision should be included to ensure that this measure does not become redundant because the upper limit becomes eroded to such an extent as to be as meaningless as the funds of some of the charities which, we hope, will achieve fresh point and purpose as a result of the Bill.

Mr. Richard Page: We all appreciate that £1,000 is a useful round figure and suitable for inclusion in the Bill at this stage. Quite apart from any erosion by inflation, however, would the Home Office consider raising the

figure to perhaps £1,500 or £2,000 if it turned out that that would enable a larger proportion of charities to take advantage of the Bill?

Mr. Mellor: I take my hon. Friend's point. Some people might have supported a higher limit at this stage. I cannot speak for my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, but I am sure that he agrees that the arbitrary nature of any upper limit means that such a case can always be put. At present, however, we believe that £1,000 is a realistic limit. However, if the measure proved so useful over the years that pressure built up to bring in charities just above that limit, the Home Secretary of the day would probably command the respect and support of the House if he decided to build on this valuable change in charity law by allowing more charities to come within its scope.
Another important aspect is when the powers in the Bill shall be exercisable. My right hon. Friend's proposal is very much in line with the recommendation of the Expenditure Committee that the donor should have been dead for a number of years. My right hon. Friend has chosen a period of 40 years as appropriate. I do not know whether "Forty Years On" was ringing in his ears when he made that decision. Again, whatever the period selected, a case could always be made for a shorter or longer period. We must strike an appropriate balance between respecting the wishes of the person who set up the charity and preventing the charity's funds from lying unused and losing their value. I suggest that that balance has been achieved.
Only one matter might have caused my right hon. Friend and I some concern as the Bill proceeded. A number of people have worked hard on the problems of parochial charities. I pay special tribute to Lady Faithfull who has shown great interest in this and indeed a wide range of social causes. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) will be especially aware of her work with the all-party group. She introduced in another place the Parochial Charities (Neighbourhood Trusts) Bill. That Bill covered some of the same ground, but with crucial differences, covered by the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon.
I should also pay tribute to Sir Charles Kimber, not a member of either House but someone who has also thought deeply about these matters. He circulated a memorandum to the Committee considering the Bill in this House setting out certain criticisms. As there was some minor controversy on these points, I should explain to the House why the Government have not wavered in their enthusiasm for my right hon. Friend's Bill despite those criticisms.
Sir Charles was understandably concerned that the Bill might have the potential to destroy thousands of small charities. As I and my right hon. Friend have said, it is important to bear in mind that the Bill merely enables the trustees to wind up small funds that in their judgment can no longer serve a useful purpose. The Bill does no more than to give them that initiative. I should have thought that the concept employed by the word "destroy" would be utterly alien to what is merely an attempt to give trustees a better chance to deal fairly and effectively with the donor's bequests according to their own judgment.
Sir Charles also did not give full weight in his comments to the number of groups which had considered these matters over the years and sought this power. The Bill is no mere manifestation of legislative zeal on the part


of my right hon. Friend. He is responding to a need that has been identified by a number of different bodies in the past decade.
Sir Charles was concerned that the Bill offended the basic principle of charity law that a charitable trust cannot be allowed to fail. On the contrary, as the capital sum must be expended for the purposes of the charity the Bill will allow the trust to fulfil its purpose by allowing a larger sum to be expended. Indeed, it will probably permit trusts to fulfil their purposes more effectively than they could with small sums of interest in perpetuity.
We could not give Lady Faithfull's Bill the same warm welcome that we have given to my right hon. Friend's Bill because—I hope that this has been a consistent theme in the debate — we could not accept the element of compulsion. Lady Faithfull's Bill advocated a principle of compulsory amalgamation. I appreciate that there is a strong body of opinion to the effect that voluntary amalgamations have proved impossible to achieve. There is evidence that trustees of local charities are reluctant to see the funds of their charities diverted to neighbouring parishes in the way that I have described. It is also fair to state that the advisory powers of the Charity Commissioners have not always yielded the benefits that some outside observers would wish. Nevertheless, as I have said, we do not wish to contemplate such an element of compulsion at this stage.
We were also unable to be enthusiastic about Lady Faithfull's Bill because the resource implications for local authorities and for the Charity Commissioners would have been considerable and local authorities said that the obligations placed upon them would have made it difficult for them to implement that measure. The feeling was also expressed to my noble Friend that that Bill would have an indiscriminate effect, and that a parochial charity, working perfectly well at present, could be compulsorily swept up into an amalgamated charity, so that the benefit would be very mixed.
As I have said, my right hon. Friend's Bill covers much of the same ground but does so in a way that, in my respectful submission to this House, does not have any of the problems revealed by the other Bill, useful though a consideration of that other Bill has been in refining what seems to be the next step that we should take.
It has been most useful that the House should have had an opportunity of considering why my right hon. Friend's Bill is necessary. I end as I began, by thanking my right hon. Friend for allowing us the opportunity to have the debate. Charitable activity and enterprise are, we believe, very much a part of the core of English community life. Charitable spirit is flourishing as much today as it ever did, but there is a need to impose some practicable and realistic rules on the very small charities. That is what the Bill does, and we welcome it as a modest but very helpful reform in the administration and rationalisation of charities.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratord-on-Avon (Sir A. Maude) for not being present while he was moving the Third Reading of the Bill. I was at a Commonwealth

Parliamentary Association meeting. I apologise to the House if I touch on areas which have already been fully covered.
I join in the tributes which have been paid to my right hon. Friend. The Bill and his actions demonstrate that the House of Commons usually works best when it works in small steps at sensible reforms. I had doubts, in the past, about the Expenditure Committee proposals and the Goodman report on the scale of sorting out and updating charity law. I approve of the objectives of those who spent many months in preparing recommendations. I have watched with interest successive reports of the Charity Commissioners on a wide range of issues. I have studied and occasionally indulged in the controversy over the difficulties that the Charity Commissioners and Ministers have had with certain charities.
However much one may feel frustrated and share the frustrations of a Minister over, for example, the Unification church—the Moonies—the independence of the Charity Commissioners needs to be protected as much as one would want to protect the independence of the judiciary. I welcome the ability to criticise them and engage in discussion with them. Rather than having Charity Commissioners who always do what the Government—or even the House of Commons, in a unanimous sense—want them to do, it is much better that the Charity Commissioners should have independence and be able to say, "No, the law does not require us to do that."
To try to update the general law of charities in one go would be counter-productive. I suspect that if the Labour party tried to do so over independent education it would run into difficulties. If it were to override those difficulties I suspect that the country would suffer enormously because of the many people involved in charity work and the many people who are recipients of charity.
To put my remarks in context, I should declare that I am involved with several charities, most of them substantial. I am chairman of the Church of England Children's Society and a trustee of Christian Aid, both multi-million pounds a year charities.
When we are talking of making it possible for trustees of small charities to modify rules of trust laid down by donors, we need also to emphasise how important it is that charities now, as before, should try to get direct donations, gifts and benefactions.
There is a great deal of publicity of indirect ways of raising money for charities. I do not criticise the charities for that. Often the indirect ways have done as much for publicity as for raising money. When considering charities in any way at all, we should always be willing to remind ourselves and others that direct giving is often the best giving. Even going a stage further and setting an example by sacrificial giving, it should be emphasised that the whole essence of charity is not that people give what they can afford but that often they given more than they can afford.
My experience of charitable work and the work of trustees of charities is that people are willing to give immense amounts of time, effort and concern. In many cases the value of the time that is given is greater than the funds being administered. There is nothing wrong in that.
My right hon. Friend's Bill allows trustees in different circumstances to make a decision for themselves that the purposes of their particular trust or charity would be best served and would be more likely to be in keeping with the


aims of the founder of the charity if the capital could be used as income. I do not think that my right hon. Friend would have proposed that, where it is merely a question of the bother of administering a small trust or charity, the trustees should then necessarily decide that they wish to treat capital as income.
In many areas it is a matter of pride — and also a good example — that people are willing to go on administering small endowments, with the intention that it should be done in perpetuity by their successors. Whether it is simply for symbolic reasons or for reasons of greater concern should not matter to us. The point is that where such trustees decide that they want to use the capital as though it were income, they should in those very resticted circumstances be empowered to go forward along those lines.
I acknowledge that the Minister did not take the opportunity to give the general Government view on the state of charities as a whole in Britain. I would not want to widen the debate too greatly by talking of a number of issues which charities themselves would like Parliament to discuss, but I hope I may be allowed to touch briefly on one of them. Before doing so, I suggest that it is perhaps a tribute to this House that on the day after some fairly exciting local elections, and perhaps in a time before a general election — when we shall be able to pay more tributes to my right hon. Friend and others who will be completing their service in this House—we are able to have a debate without party controversy. Perhaps I may say, in parenthesis, that there is no party controversy at the moment because the Labour party is apparently willing to leave to my right hon. Friend and two or three of his hon. Friends the responsibility for guiding the Bill through its Third Reading. The Labour party is right to trust us in that respect, as in other matters. It is right that the House of Commons should be able to change its mood from Prime Minister's Question Time on Thursday during local government elections to dealing with this sort of measure.
I should like to refer briefly to the effective income of charities. The Bill is concerned in the main with endowment income. If there were a continuing new flow of income from outside an endowment, there would stll be an intention for the trustees to keep the charity going or to rebuild an endowment that might have been hit by inflation or other things.
There has been a great campaign to relieve charities —certainly those above a certain size—of the impact of VAT. I suggest to the Minster—perhaps he will discuss my suggestion with the Treasury—that instead of simply looking at the relief of VAT he should consider whether the desire to boost the income of charities—which the Government have done fairly effectively in the past four years—or the desire to relieve them, in a way that is administratively simple, of taxes that should not be paid, could be met by following the method by which income tax is treated on life insurance premiums, and now on building society mortgage interest.
Perhaps I might put my suggestion in a sentence and then move on. Charitable income that is not from endowments, and is not for service charges from local authorities or others, should be regarded as coming from taxed income in all events. We should not require covenants to be made out all the time, because that writes off the widow's mite and other small donations. It is just as right to regard money that is put in a collecting tin for the Earl Haig fund as coming out of taxed income, and the

only time that it will not come out of taxed income is when it comes from people whose income is below the tax threshold. It would be right to impute the tax credit on that form of giving, just as it is for those who pay at the standard rate. However, I have diverted somewhat from the purpose of the Bill, and perhaps I should say no more on that matter.
My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the proposed legislation from our noble Friend Lady Faithfull. In general, when Lady Faithfull supports something and the Government do not, I would be on her side. Last week, when I supported something that the Government did not support, I was glad to have her on my side. She provided what I regard as legislative charitable help to a category of people whom I call elderly orphans. She and Baroness Seear managed to write into a Bill something that in my opinion would be of great advantage to and be thoroughly supported by the trustees of a number of charities concerned with the elderly, especially the National Council for Carers and their Elderly Dependants.
The point of view that has been put forward by the Minister about just making the Bill an enabling one is the right one, at least now in this Parliament. We should always try to take those assured and sensible steps with which my right hon. Friend will always be associated, and to have some scepticism in ourselves but perhaps going that extra stage that Lady Faithfull would like us to go, which has not been sufficiently established, and which might bring controversy into the matter. That would be of value to thousands of charities over the years, but only a few to begin with. People want to see that the enabling power can be used in a sensible manner, and then more people may have the confidence to re-examine their actions and trusts.
Perhaps I might illustrate the fact that the original intentions of benefactors may become out of date by an example from Oxford, with which I know my noble friend Lady Faithfull is associated. One of my wife's great-grandmothers was so upset that fellows' wives were not allowed to dine in college that she endowed a dinner to which wives were allowed to come. In fact, fellows could not go unless they brought their wives. This Poulton dinner was originally set up with an endowment of about £100. One could go along and have a ploughman's lunch, or something like that, although I am sure that it is grander than that. Now, of course, many colleges allow women to be fellows, and the original purpose is out of date. It is just a nice tradition. My wife's great-grandmother set up the whole thing as a charity for the purpose of the education of fellows so that they could meet the wives, or for the education of wives so that they could meet the fellows. Something along those lines could have been set up at any time during the past four or five hundred years and the trustees carrying the burden of administering the intentions of the benefactor might rightly say, "We shall move on from having Cheddar to Lymeswold, and we shall blow the lot, for the purposes of which the benefactor would thoroughly approve."
I come back to charities as a whole. I know that my right hon. Friend would not want any publicity about the Bill to prevent people from trying to establish more charities or new charities. However much he or I or anyone else might dispute the actions of certain charities, the idea of work for the public good without any prospect of profit,


for the avoidance of distress, disadvantage or handicap is a tradition to which we all give general support on almost all occasions, and specific support as well.
I pay tribute to the Charity Commissioners. In one or two of the charities in which I am involved we have had our differences with them on occasions, but that is a healthy process. In general, however, the support and advice that they give to charities, especially the small charities, is greatly to be welcomed. Whenever I hear of people having difficulty in getting a charity established—they cannot get the Charity Commissioners to accept their objectives, or whatever the case may be—I advise them to go and see the Charity Commissioners and have an open discussion with them. As long as the intention is right and the constitution or trust deed is right, there is normally a way round the occasional difficulties that arise because of the absence of much case law in charities and new legislation.
Part of the political process — speaking in a nonpartisan sense—is to try to make sure that people can match their actions with their ambitions within the framework of charity law. The Charity Commissioners have what I regard as an almost impossible job, in the same way as the Home Office has an almost impossible job in matters dealt with by the Bill that is to be considered next. Again, the common theme is the avoidance of distress, disadvantage and handicap. The legislative purpose is different, but the aims are the same.
The Charity Commissioners deserve a pat on the back. They must regard themselves as open to unwanted advice from this House on occasion, but I thoroughly support the independence of trustees and that of the Charity Commissioners, and progress in slow steps.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his success, and I hope that many trustees will consider taking advantage of the expanded powers that they may have. I believe that charities will find themselves in a better position after the passage of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Pet Animals Act 1951 (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[MR. PAUL DEAN in the Chair]

Clause 1

AMENDMENT OF I95I ACT

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Miss Janet Fookes: I am anxious to proceed to the Third Reading of the Bill, but it is worth dwelling on the wording of the clause, because it falls into that awkward category of clauses that seek to amend another Act. Unfortunately, it is usually difficult for the casual reader to follow what is meant and on some occasions the wording is incomprehensible without reference to the parent Act, in this case the Pet Animals Act 1951.
Clause 1 seeks to amend the 1951 Act in two respects. First, it seeks to alter section 2, which says:
If any person carries on a business of selling animals as pets in any part of a street or public place, except at a stall or barrow in a market, he shall be guilty of an offence.
The clause would alter that section to read:
If any person carries on a business of selling animals as pets in any part of a street or public place, or at a stall or barrow in a market, he shall be guilty of an offence.
The dispensation that allowed animals to be sold at stalls or barrows in a market will be brought to an end—and not before time. It has been a crying scandal for many years that the loophole in the original Act has been allowed to stand.
The second part of the clause deals with the interpretation of "premises" in the 1951 Act:
'premises' includes any stall or barrow in a market, but save as aforesaid does not include any stall or barrow or any part of a street or public place".
Therefore, "premises" is extended to ridiculous lengths, to include a stall or barrow in a market. Clause 1 would delete that reference—again, not before time.
It might be imagined that only a limited number of pets would be sold from a barrow or a stall. Sadly, that is not the case and over the years all manner of creatures have been sold off barrows and stalls. It might be useful for me to refer to a paper prepared by an RSPCA inspector for the society about 10 years ago. He listed the animals that had been sold under the 1951 Act. It is an astonishing list and I have never even heard of some of the exotic creatures on it.
I shall quote some of the animals on the list to give the House an idea of what can happen under the loose wording of the 1951 Act. The inspector listed parrots, various types of cage birds, including canaries and budgerigars, pigeons, rabbits, guinea pigs, mice, gerbils, rats, snakes and other reptiles, tropical fish, cold water fish, small mammals, day-old chicks and ducklings, adult dogs and puppies — mongrel and pedigree — cats, ferrets and monkeys.
The list goes on to mention a series of exotic birds and other animals:
marabou storks, jabiru storks, pelicans. greater flamingoes, toucans: coviers, sulpha breasted, toco, hill, emerald. Parrots:


amazons, african greys, slate-headed parakeets, black capped lorys, masked love birds, golden conuros, rainbow lorikeets, cocktails, leadbeater and sulpha crested cockatoos. Macaws: scarlet, gold and blue military, hyacinth. Apes, monkeys and many other species of animals. Game fowl, pheasants, all breeds of birds of prey. Finches, waxbills, manikins, flycatchers, mynahs, tanagas, cardinals, adauavats, humming birds, sugar birds, spice birds, honey eaters, cock of the rocks.
I am not even sure that I have pronounced some of these exotic species correctly. It is a long strange list. All are sold at some stage from harrows and stalls in places such as the notorious Club row, the best known of these markets, where the Act fails to apply satisfactorily.
Club row is not the only market. Research by the RSPCA has ascertained that over the years no less than 23 markets in all parts of the country have been operating and selling animals as pets. It therefore appears to me absolutely essential and long overdue to pass clause 1, which would bring this practice to an end. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Robert Banks: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), who so eloquently put the case for approving the Bill. I am fascinated by the long list of exotic birds and other animals and creatures which she read out. It almost took us to the tropical forests of lands far from here. I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work in animal welfare over the years. We could almost say that, in the House, she is a champion of champions of these causes and she brings particular knowledge to our debates.
I support street markets. They are an international institution. One of the attractions of other countries is their street markets. Their colourfulness is marvellous and one can enjoy the smells of the exotic spices sold there. Street markets give an opportunity to individuals to start their own businesses. I am in favour of that.
In Britain, far from a decline, there is a continuing interest in street markets. Saturdays and Sundays are busy times for many of the markets. Visiting a street market is an interesting thing to do in one's leisure time. At the same time, street markets are bargaining centres where trade is conducted in a colourful style. It is interesting to go into the markets to listen to the sellers and observe how they manage to attract people to their barrows or stalls to buy their goods. They always seem to offer the most remarkable bargains.
There has been a growth of out-of-town markets. I know of a disused airfield that has been turned into a Sunday market. People can go there and park their cars without a problem and enjoy walking round the market, no doubt making their purchases.
An essential element of street markets is impulse buying, which is why I strongly support the Bill. How easy it is for a parent with one or more children to pass by a stall selling puppies, kittens or goldfish and to say on impulse, "Let us have a dog", without thinking of the implications.

Mr. George Foulkes: I was wondering about parents with one or more children.

Mr. Banks: They are just as able to succumb to the impulse, but children can be particularly persuasive.
There is something charming about a child and a puppy. The buying of a puppy or kitten must be thought out seriously. It becomes another member of the family. The animal will grow. Sometimes people buy a small puppy and find that it grows into a large dog. It needs to be fed, watered, exercised and given proper attention.
I find it a matter of great regret that there are dogs and cats in this country which are not given proper attention. They are sometimes cast out when a family goes on holiday. There are a number of stray dogs. I do not know whether they are, on the increase or decrease—I hope it is the decrease—but there are far too many of them. People succumb to the impulse of buying a pet without realising the full implications of having it in the household.
For other animals such as rabbits or mice, there must be some preparation—for example, a cage. Food must be provided. Those are not always available at stores. A rabbit or mouse can be brought home and put into indifferent or improper housing.
I am concerned because we are dealing with animals which, under the terms of the 1951 Act, are defined as vertebrates. I hope that I am right in assuming—perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify this — that goldfish, song birds, snakes and other mammals and birds will come under this amending legislation.
One of the intriguing situations with which we find ourselves confronted is the growth of the number of dogs. In 1973 it was estimated that there were 5·83 million dogs in this country. In 1976, a report of the working party on dogs estimated that there were some 6 million dogs. Yet in the financial year 1981–82 the Post Office issued only 2·5 million dog licences. That runs contrary to the view of the working party that there are some 6 million dogs. It estimated that 6 million to be in the United Kingdom, whereas the 2·5 million dog licences issued were issued in only England and Wales. I simply do not believe that there are 3·5 million dogs in Scotland and Northern Ireland alone.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman confirms my remark. The worrying factor about dog licences is that we are not actually paying our way. The deficit on what it costs to collect dog licences, offset by the income produced by those issued, is £2·2 million. That has risen alarmingly over the years. I cannot help but feel that more than £2 million could be well spent on animal welfare if we brought dog licences to a level that allowed for at least a small profit.
It is estimated that a dog licence, adjusted for inflation over the many years at which it has been set at the present rate, should cost £10. That is a reasonable sum for a family who enter into a contract to own a dog. For the elderly, who have difficulties because they are on low pensions, there should be a reduced licence fee.
I say earnestly to the Minister that it is time that we grappled with the problem and adjusted dog licences to take account of the enormous deficit that is accumulating year after year.
We might dispose of dog licences altogether but that could open the door to greater increases in the clog population. I am anxious that that should not happen as it would entail problems such as the soiling of pavements. There is a marvellous area of grassland in the centre of Harrogate which is known as the Stray. People who walk there or whose children play on it have a problem with soiling. I am anxious, therefore, that there should be a reduction or at least a stabilisation of the size of the dog population.
12.45 pm
One of the cardinal ponts which we should bear in mind when considering this Bill is that animals which are not successfully sold on a barrow or stall one day are taken back by their owners, who will presumably look after them until the next market day. That is a crucial factor in my support for the Bill. We have no control over how the cats, dogs, kittens, puppies and other animals are looked after while they are being offered for sale. That is a cause of anxiety.
Many years ago, I lived in a mews next door to some garages which were used by people who ran barrows and stalls to store their vegetables. They were a great bunch of people and I have the highest regard for them but to judge from the conditions in which they kept their vegetables I dread to think of the conditions in which animals are kept between market days.
As a child, I always found it a great joy to visit a pet shop. It was a pleasure to be taken out to visit one. However, it was deeply ingrained in me that one of the dangers of buying a pet from a stall or barrow was that the animal might be carrying a disease as it had not come directly from the kennel or cattery but had been moved around. Nothing is more distressing than an animal which has become a loved one in the household dying prematurely. Moreover, someone who buys an animal from a barrow or stall cannot take it back to the vendor because the pet has something wrong with one of its eyes or has some other illness and get his money back. If, however, one buys a pet from a pet stall, that shop's reputation relies on providing a good service and closely examining all the pets that it sells to ensure that they are in peak condition.
I warmly support new clause 1. It is necessary and will help us to reduce the instances of cruelty when animals are bought on impulse and not looked after properly. New clause 1 will enable us to ensure that pets are properly looked after when they are offered for sale and when they are in what I might call the stock room.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) in bringing forward this clause, and I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) said about her contribution to animal welfare, which we all applaud. That contribution is further manifested by her decision to take up this useful Bill. I confirm what she said about the impact of clause 1. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate need have no fears about goldfish, snakes and songbirds, all of which are protected by the Pet Animals Act 1951 and by the proposed new clause.
Clause 1, which is the engine of the Bill, is a modest but important measure to prohibit the sale of pet animals in street markets. The proposal has a long history. During the passage of the Bill that became the 1951 Act an unsuccessful attempt was made to amend it along the lines of today's new clause. Similar Bills were introduced in 1969, 1970 and 1974 by the late Sir Ronald Russell, who will be remembered by senior Members of the House. He sponsored the original Pet Animals Bill in 1951.
This Bill comes from the other place, where it was introduced by Lord Houghton, whose work on animal welfare I warmly applaud. He introduced the measure in three Sessions of this Parliament, but previously it made

little progress in the House. On those occasions the Government expressed sympathy with the objectives of the Bill but considered that its wider implications needed careful thought. It was beleived that the case for such a Bill was not as well established as it has been today by my hon. Friend the Member for Drake. However, since taking up responsibility for such matters at the Home Office, I have reconsidered the matter in the light of present evidence. The Government have a more favourable view of the need for such a Bill this time, and I hope that we have played some part in ensuring that it has proceeded with proper expedition, and that it will complete all its stages today.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Drake made clear, much of the anxiety about this matter has been focused on one street market, Club row, of whose activities I have become well aware not only as a Minister at the Home Office but as a Member of Parliament for an inner London constituency. Many of my constituents have expressed concern about that market, and their remarks weighed heavily in my consideration of the matter. When the measure was before the House of Lords in the previous Session the Government spokesman said that to use national legislation to solve a local problem was like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
A legitimate case was deployed that pets were protected by an array of legislation and that the livelihoods of traders at other markets throughout the country would suffer, perhaps unfairly, when the same case was not being made against those other markets as against Club row. They were all being tarred with the same brush. Honourably enough, as I hope even those who disagreed with the Government on that occasion would think, my noble Friend thought that the case for the Bill had not been conclusively proved. However, we have been considering the evidence. I have had the opportunity to have a fresh look at it. Fresh aspects of the matter have come to light over the past year, which have proved decisive in deciding whether the measure should reach the statute book.
I welcome this, and I am sure that my hon. Friend did. It is significant that the licensing authority concerned with the stalls in Club row, the Tower Hamlets borough council, was over the past 12 months converted to the firm belief that animals should not be sold in such stalls and has taken action within its own remit against that market.
The Pet Animals Act 1951 is designed to ensure that animals sold should at all times be kept in suitable conditions without enduring suffering of any kind. Section 1 of the Act requires any person carrying on the business of selling animals as pets to obtain a licence from the local authority. Before issuing a licence the local authority is required to have regard amongst other things to the need for ensuring that the animals will at all times be kept in suitable accommodation, suitable as regards size, temperature, lighting, ventilation and cleanliness, and that the animals will be adequately supplied with food and drink.
Section 2 of the Act, which is affected by clause 1, prohibits the carrying on of a business of selling animals as pets in any part of a street or public place, except a licensed stall or barrow in a market. It is this section of the Act that this Bill attempts to amend so that it shall not henceforth include this exemption for licensed stalls or barrows in a market. Responsible animal welfare groups such as the RSPCA, with which my hon. Friend had such a long and distinguished association, have been saying for some time that it is impossible for the spirit of the Act and


perhaps even the letter to be adhered to in street markets. By their very nature, they say, stalls in markets are subject to the whims of the elements—we are all aware of how whimsical they can be, especially during the cricket season. Animals are likely to be placed near or with others of different origin, perhaps dirty or diseased, and may become infected. That was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate had in mind. There is also the market environment—the travel to and from the market, the noise and the constant handling of the animals, which is obviously far from ideal for the animals exposed to it.
Those in favour of the Bill rightly argue that the sale of animals from stalls in markets can encourage the casual and irresponsible purchase of pets. That point was eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate. As he said, pets are attractive to look at. I have a small child and I know the impact that spontaneous meetings with animals can have on him when we walk around my home area. Even an adult who is unused to animals or unaware of the time and money that good care of a pet consumes can be carried away on the spur of the moment and enter into obligations by purchasing on impulse. That can lead to the pet being neglected or, at worst, abandoned, and possibly suffering on the way from acts of cruelty that none of us would want to contemplate.
We have tried to keep our ears open to all points made by animal welfare groups. In previous years the Government listened carefully to those views, but were not then wholly convinced, although, I hope, not unsympathetic, that taking comprehensive powers on a national scale was necessary to protect a small number of animals.
1 pm
The conditions at Club row, the actions of the borough council and a more careful consideration of what market sales involve leads one to be aware that even though animals, like human beings, have a tolerance for conditions that are not ideal, there is a real problem associated with the sale of animals from street markets, which will exist however well run the markets are. That widens the dimension of the consideration of this issue beyond the problem of Club row to street markets in rather more pleasant environments. Even those better conditions might pose problems that would make it impossible to exercise that civilised care for animals that we would want to be shown. That is why I am happy to say that the balance of evidence and public opinion has tipped the scales against our previous stance.
We do not accuse stallholders of deliberate cruelty or neglect. We do not accept that the majority of animals sold in markets are reduced to a state of abject misery. However, we believe—it is a personal belief that I hold strongly—that the general standards and conditions that even the best stallholders can provide are not up to the minimum standards that public opinion would like. The Bill reflects a growing consensus that the sale of animals from market stalls should be prohibited.
This general trend in public opinion has also removed one of our previous main objections to the Bill. We were entitled to take the view that the Bill would deprive traders of their livelihoods. However, as action has already been taken by the local authority over Club row, and as most of those carrying on businesses in markets are pet shop owners who could continue their normal business and

whose livelihoods would not be put at risk by the loss of the proceeds from a weekend market stall, we wish no longer to uphold our previous objection.
I remind the House that Britain has a great tradition of caring for its animals. It is one of which we can justly be proud. We have a substantial body of legislation that is designed specifically to protect animals, which in its breadth and comprehensiveness has few, if any, equals in any other part of the world. It is right that attention is focused on the inadequacy of our laws in certain respects, but we should not forget that over the years we have had considerable success in establishing a framework of protection that many other countries would be proud to emulate.
The Bill is another small piece in the jigsaw that I hope will soon, as a result of our deliberations, become a useful part of the main body of la w. It is no criticism of the Bill to say that it will not make a huge difference overall. It reflects a continuing interest that we all have in the welfare of animals. I believe that it will make a genuine contribution to the well-being of pets. I welcome the clause and I hope later today to be able to welcome the Bill on to the statute book.

Mr. Richard Page: I support the clause and the Bill. The Bill is a typical example of how changing conditions require regular updating of the law, but it is of a type that will be under increasing attack in future. Our society is becoming more and more complex and there is growing pressure from other sources of legislation. Membership of the EC has brought much more work before the House. There is now the need to consider and debate the reports of the various Select Committees. There is also the rather individual role of hon. Members within the House.
Not for us the ability to read into the record, as happens in other Parliaments. If we were to return to our constituents at the end of a Session and say that we had not spoken, they would look at us askance, whereas there are other Parliaments in which Members are actively discouraged from speaking; they lose Brownie points if they speak.
With a general election not far distant, we shall find that there are even more Conservative Members, and thus increased pressure on the lime available for us to speak. I shall be recommending some public expenditure to be passed rapidly through the House to extend the Benches on this side so that we shall be able to accommodate the additional colleagues who will be joining us.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is making a mistake. Labour Members will be on the Benches opposite after the election.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. That has nothing to do with clause 1 of this Bill.

Mr. Page: You are of course right, Mr. Weatherill, and I must not be led astray, even though we try to treat Labour Members with as much affection as possible. As I said, I see a need, with the increased demand on official parliamentary time, jealously to preserve our private parliamentary time. If we do not do that, we shall lose the sort of opportunities that we have on Fridays to make small but significant improvements to our legislation. In our previous debate my hon. Friend the Member for


Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) said that some of the best improvements that we make are secured by small, rather than blockbusting, alterations to our legislation.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), who is a real champion of defenceless animals. She has worked immensely hard for many years to achieve better conditions for them and it is not surprising to find her here today supporting this sensible measure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) made possibly the most important point about the operations of street markets when he referred to impulse buying. While it is all right to buy on impulse a new brand of cornflakes, too many people acquire animals with no more thought. I am appalled by how casually some people undertake the commitment to look after animals. I reinforce the appeal made by the RSPCA each Christmas telling people, in effect, "If you intend to undertake to look after an animal, remember that that undertaking is for the lifetime of the animal. It is not something to be played with and petted during the Christmas holiday, later to be destroyed, turned out into the street or otherwise disposed of."
I hope that people will be more responsible when they purchase pets, which brings me to another important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate, the licensing of dogs. I agree with what he said about the way in which pavements are soiled, the difficulties of control and the embarrassment and hardships that such problems often cause.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) about the uneconomic operation of the present licence system. I doubt whether increasing the fee to £10 will solve the problem. We want owners to recognise their responsibilities towards their pets of whatever species — they do not have to be dogs. I wonder whether increasing the fee from the old 7s. 6d. to £10 will achieve that. It will achieve only an increase in bureaucracy and a need for a department to catch those people who have not paid their £10. I should prefer more enforcement of the law and penalties greater than £10. That would bring about a change of attitude in the owners of dogs and other animals. They would start to take better care of their pets. I believe that an increase in the licence fee would produce the opposite of what we want to achieve. It will bring more hardship to dogs. If dogs can be badly treated and thrown out on the streets when the licence fee is the equivalent of only 7s. 6d., what will happen if it is raised to £10? I see more people being prepared to walk away lightly from their responsibilities.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the licence fee were required to be paid at the time of purchase, impulse buying would be less likely? If the licensed trader were obliged to incorporate the collection of the initial fee as part of the sale the problem for the first year would be overcome and at the end of the first year other factors would be more likely to come into play.

Mr. Page: I accept that what my hon. Friend has suggested would be an improvement. I am worried that the amount of legislation and bureaucracy necessary to collect a relatively small sum would be disproportionate to the advantages. At the end of the first year there would need

to be a follow-up and people would need to check. It would be too easy to take the collar off the dog and say that it no longer belonged to one and kick it out on to the street miles away from home. That is why I am worried about the hardship that the increase in the licence fee could bring to animals as well as the disproportionate cost of collecting the money. We should put the responsibility for the behaviour and control of animals where it belongs—on the owner. That is why I should like to see the penalties enforced more vigorously.

Mr. Banks: I should like to make it clear that the £10 to which I referred is the sum which should be applied to a dog licence if account is taken of inflation since the present sum for a dog licence was established. I am not advocating necessarily that £10 should be the figure that we should work on now for dog licences. I feel that the dog licence fee should break even with the cost of collection and that it is wrong for the Government to go on subsidising dog licences by over £2 million a year. That is the crucial point that needs to be borne in mind.
I refer my hon. Friend to the other part of my speech, in which I pointed out that only 2·5 million dog licences per year are issued, whereas the estimated dog population may well be more than 6 million. Therefore, a great many people have dogs but do not have licences.

Mr. Page: I fully understand those points, but if there is so much evasion of the present meagre fee I believe that the number of evaders would increase enormously if the fee were increased. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare to control such a system. That is why I oppose any increase in the fee. Indeed, I see no good reason for licence fees at all. I fully understand that my hon. Friend has simply taken an increase in line with inflation on the original 7s 6d. No doubt we could spend many happy hours arguing whether that was a correct base figure in the first place. Perhaps we may agree to disagree on the subject of licence fees.
The Bill plugs a loophole created by the changing laws of this country. I hope that it will prevent suffering for animals and stop casual and impulse purchases of defenceless creatures. I warmly welcome the Bill and I sincerely hope that it will complete all its stages in this House today.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Miss Fookes: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is an honour to move the Third Reading of this Bill, which is modest in size but valuable in its effects.
The Bill is the culmination of many years of endeavour and is an object lesson in the value of tenacity in politics. I realise more and more that it is not so much the original idea of genius that counts so much as the carrying through of a good idea to conclusion, despite opposition and despite the apathy that can be almost worse than outright opposition.
The parent Act was introduced by a former Conservative colleague, the late Sir Ronald Russell. I am sure that when he introduced that most useful measure he


had no idea that a loophole which later became obvious would cause so much distress and suffering to animals sold from barrows and stalls in street markets. He certainly became aware of it as we had indications of how the Act of 1951 was working out in practice. As has already been said, he tried on at least three occasions to introduce an amendment very much on the lines of the Bill that we have before us today. That was in 1969 and in 1970.
In a speech to this House in 1973, Sir Ronald made it perfectly clear how he felt about the matter. On that occasion I had introduced a debate on animal welfare generally, and he chose, as his contribution, to show his deep concern about loopholes in his own Act. He expressed the wish then to introduce yet another attempt to close that loophole, and it is constructive to see precisely what he said:
I intend to try introducing such a Bill again this Session, to see what happens. Even if it fails, it will at least bring the subject to the notice of the House, and in that way we shall, perhaps, gradually get something done. It should now be made unlawful to sell animals in conditions such as I have described from stalls and harrows in market places." — [Official Report, 14 December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 869.]
I doubt whether Sir Ronald could have realised just how gradual the process would be, because it is nearly 10 years since he made those remarks. Sadly, his third attempt was doomed to failure, and he died in 1974 without ever seeing the amendment put on the statute book.
Further attempts were made subsequently by Lord Houghton in 1981 and 1982, and now we have this Bill. I, too, should like to pay a warm tribute to Lord Houghton's tenacity of purpose. I doubt whether such a measure could ever have come from this House because of the pressures of time, and we are indebted to Lord Houghton and to the other place for bringing forward the Bill.
There has, of course, been activity outside the House which has to some extent alleviated the position, which at its worst was very bad indeed, and about which I should like to say a little more later in my speech. Over the years the RSPCA inspectors have performed sterling service in going to the market at regular intervals and trying to improve conditions there. Largely through their efforts, no fewer than 56 convictions were obtained between 1973 and 1980 in regard to animals originating in Club row. Their time is, perforce, limited. They have to stretch themselves and try very hard to be in several places at once.
I pay tribute also to those who have formed unofficial vigilante committees and have gone to the market Sunday after Sunday to try to ensure that as good conditions as possible are observed. On occasions the demonstrations have been noisy, and I recognise that on occasions it has taken police time, but it can be safely said that those demonstrations, on the whole absolutely peaceful, have served to bring publicity to Club row — no doubt unwelcome from the traders' point of view but in my opinion most valuable — and have deterred the traders from trading to anything like the previous extent.
If we were to visit Club row we would now find far fewer species of animals and birds for sale than the long list that I read out during the Committee stage of the Bill. At that time, all those animals and birds could be found on sale in the market. The pressure of public opinion has undoubtedly been a valuable instrument in reducing the activities of Club row. However, it ties up people's time, especially that of the RSPCA inspectors. Clearly

prevention is better than cure. It is far better that no animals should be sold in such circumstances that people have to watch over them in an attempt to mitigate the ill-effects of selling them in poor conditions.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the penalties available are adequate if pressure is not applied? In other words, is conviction being considered because of the pressure that is being brought to bear by the general public? If that pressure were not there, would the number of convictions rapidly fall away because the number of those involved taking action against people contravening the law would decrease, in that they believed that the penalties available were totally inadequate bearing in mind the time that they spent?

Miss Fookes: I take my hon. Friend's point. The total banning of the sale of pet animals from stalls and barrows should make life easier both for the police and the RSPCA inspectorate, since on the whole it is they who take action in this country to deal with the matter.
The penalties under our general law relating to animal welfare are probably sufficient at present. A problem arose in that there was no way to force the local authority to use its own powers under the 1951 Act. I took up this point a year or two ago with Ministers at the Home Office, but there was no way that the penalties under the 1951 Act could be brought into force except by the action of the local authority. If the local authority did not choose to act, and at the time it did not, nothing could be done except under general animal welfare law. Now, with the banning, as we shall have it, all should be well, and we need have no anxiety on that score.
We have dwelt on the activities of Club row because it is the most well known market. However, it is important to realise that there are markets throughout the country, from Braintree to Doncaster. There are three in London, and others at Chelmsford, Newcastle, Cardiff and Selby. In all, there are 23. It is a nation-wide problem, not a local one. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary recognises that, because it was one of the stumbling blocks in attempts to get legislation through in previous years, when the Home Office insisted on believing that it was a small local difficulty when, in fact, it is a nation-wide problem.

Mr. Banks: As we are members of the European Community, would my hon. Friend care to speculate about whether this measure will be noted in the EC so that we can in some way influence animal protection in the other countries of the Community?

Miss Fookes: I certainly hope that it will serve as a model for other EC countries. One of the welcome spinoffs from membership of the EC is the ability to take legislative action in a number of countries, not simply our own. The only possible snag is that they tend to go to the lowest common denominator, which might be less than we would wish. However, at least there are opportunities there to work on a much wider scale, and that is valuable. I hope that we shall be in a position to influence our Common Market partners to ensure that pet animals are not sold in unsuitable places.
It is usually fun to visit markets, but I recall being made most unhappy on a visit abroad by going to a market and seeing wild birds in tiny cages. That totally spoilt my pleasure. I have only to see animals in foreign markets and


I turn and run. One knows that one can do little about it but it is a heart-breaking sight. I hope that we shall set a good example to other countries.
My hon. Friends have rightly drawn attention to the conditions in street markets. A market, by its nature, is a busy, bustling place. That is part of the excitement and glamour of a market, but it makes it the most unsuitable place imaginable for selling animals, many of which may be young—chicks, puppies and kittens—and likely to suffer stress, fear and anxiety because of the hustle and bustle and the fact that prospective buyers will pick them up. Many animals greatly fear and resent casual handling by strangers, who may not have the least idea of how to handle animals properly.
It is also important to remember the weather conditions that we experience in this country. They range from bitter cold, wind and rain to burning sunshine and heat. Under the 1951 Act, such matters are meant to be dealt with in the conditions attached to licences, but it was idiotic to imagine that notice would be taken by those running barrows or stalls of the requirement to ensure that the correct temperature is maintained.
I have heard some terrible stories from RSPCA inspectors about the plight of small animals, birds and fish in unsuitable climatic conditions. Fish needing shade have been left in glaring sunshine, and puppies have been found shivering in the wind and the rain. At other times, blistering heat has made animals pant and become visibly distressed and may even have led to their early death.
Infection can spread from the casual handling of animals in markets. A number of animals were bought at Club row some years ago by a lady who felt sorry for them. A veterinary surgeon who examined them found that the vast majority had diseases, were in distress and were likely to live only a short while. Members of the public fondly imagine that they are buying a healthy pet and discover too late that the animal is far from healthy and is likely to die quite quickly.
It is ludicrous that animals should be sold in places where disease can spread so easily. Even in the best run animal homes, kennels and catteries, disease can spread rapidly. That is one of the nightmares of those who run such homes and they have to take the most stringent precautions to ensure that disease does not spread. If it is difficult for animal homes to manage, it is clearly impossible to check the spread of disease when animals are sold on stalls and handled by prospective purchasers whose own pets may be sniffing round the market.
I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) mentioned another evil which comes from keeping pets in street markets — the encouragement given to what is usually described as impulse buying; buying thoughtlessly without understanding that the care of a living creature is a heavy responsibility, not to be undertaken lightly. I wonder how many people who buy an animal in this way calculate in advance the cost of feeding it, the cost of the proper vaccinations and inoculations, the cost of veterinary services and the cost of having the animal properly looked after when they go away on holiday. The cost of a licence for a dog at 37½ pence or whatever is a mere bagatelle, but that is another story. It is probably the least amount of

money required properly to look after a pet. Markets enable people to make these impulsive and thoughtless purchases with the most harmful effects to the animals.
Sadly, many of our major animal welfare societies spend a great deal of time picking up the pieces of irresponsible pet ownership. Purchasing in markets simply adds to that flow of unwanted cats, dogs and other animals. Only this week the latest report of the RSPCA came into my hands. It lists near the front facts and figures for 1982. Under the heading "New homes found", it states that new homes had to be found for nearly 51,500 dogs, nearly 42,000 cats and for nearly 9,000 animals described as "miscellaneous". About 102,000 animals were found homes by the RSPCA nationally—an enormous number. Sadly, many had to be humanely destroyed and of those more than 60,000 were dogs or cats too sick or injured to be allowed to live. Others had to go because suitable homes could not be found. That is the figure for one welfare society, admittedly the largest and in my biased view the best, because I am closely associated with it.
What about the work of other societies — for example, the National Canine Defence League which does sterling work; the Battersea dogs home or, nearer to my own locality, the Plymouth cats and dogs home? That list could be multiplied many times over. An enormous amount of effort goes into caring for animals which would not be there but for human irresponsibility. There are few genuine strays in the sense that they have run off. The majority are abandoned and neglected. It makes me burn with anger to see this needless suffering in a nation which calls itself animal-loving. If one works with an animal welfare society long enough that becomes a rather sick joke. I hope that when the Bill becomes an Act it will at least improve the lot of some animals and make it easier for them.
I am aware that many hon. Members who are not present today would warmly support the Bill if they could be here. Perhaps this is an appropriate moment to pay tribute to the work over the years of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir. F. Burden), who is not seeking re-election this time but who has over the years done his utmost to ensure that the lot of animals is improved. I refer also to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) who has a soft spot for animals and who at all times seeks to support Bills that are intended to improve their position.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister has disappeared. I wanted to make a point to him. He said that the Bill was short, although he made no criticism of that. In a sense, I share his disappointment. My ambitions soar far beyond the confines of the Bill. I am sure that that applies to Lord Houghton as well. We want comprehensive animal legislation covering all areas. There is ample scope for one main Act of Parliament to deal thoroughly and comprehensively with the whole question of pet animals. It is ludicrous that we have a series of small Acts that deal with the matter piecemeal. That has arisen because Governments of different political colours have failed to bring forward legislation. It has been left to the initiative of private Members who work under extraordinarily difficult conditions.
It is essential that in a new Parliament the whole of animal welfare legislation should be examined and codified. At one count, several years ago, there were about


70 Acts dealing with various facets of animal welfare. The list is probably longer now. We need a wholly different attitude by Government towards animal legislation.
I feel that I am repeating myself because I made precisely the same point in the debate to which I referred earlier 10 years ago, when the late Sir Ronald Russell made his plea for a Bill amending the Pet Animals Act. But when a thing is worth doing, it is worth repeating. I always take note of the way in which the advertisers repeatedly make the same point in the hope that, sooner or later, it will sink into even the thickest of skulls.
It would be churlish not to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his support. I am well aware that, without it, the Bill will not go through. I shall not make further criticisms. I thank my hon. Friends who have supported me today.
I hope that the Bill, now in its final stages, gets a good passage on its Third Reading, and that it will forthwith go to Her Majesty for that final Assent that will make the Bill, so long in coming, at last an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) whose personal record of service to the welfare of animals is second to none in the House. She mentioned the need for tenacity in seeing through legislation, and certainly animal welfare owes much to her tenacity. Her point about its being a short Bill was wise. I have seen so many private Member's Bills hit the dust on their way to the statute book because the sponsors have been too ambitious.
My hon. Friend mentioned the need for a codifying Act. It is difficult in spheres such as animal welfare to find such a wide measure of support and agreement that makes it possible to provide an Act to satisfy everyone. Even within animal welfare organisations, there is considerable disagreement about what aspects of animal welfare are appropriate. Being too ambitious and introducing a codifying Bill could meet major resistance because of disagreement about how it should be implemented.
Cattle markets have a long history, and many have royal charters. I imagine that that is why it was found acceptable for pets to he sold in street markets. The welfare of animals in street markets has come under increasing scrutiny recently and has given rise to anxiety. Therefore, Parliament has tended to lay down stringent rules and regulations about where they are held. It is right that we should carefully consider pets, as the people who sell them are not necessarily interested in their welfare. Many take only a transitory interest in animals with a view to selling them, much as they might collect a few gross of tubes of toothpaste to sell. Many such people look out for pets on the offchance of picking up a bargain which will appeal to young people, who then apply pressure on their parents to purchase.
My hon. Friend the Member for Drake also mentioned the tenacity of Sir Ronald Russell in 1951 in getting the first Act on to the statute book. Like subsequent hon. Members, he was disappointed that the spirit of that Act was not carried through to its conclusion. We should be angry about and appreciative of the London borough of Tower Hamlets because, if it had done its duty under the spirit of that Act, Club row would not have been the centre of controversy that it has turned out to be. If that had not happened, public attention would not have been focused on this issue to the same extent. My hon. Friend mentioned

23 other street markets which also sell pets. It is possible, of course, that animals sold in such markets in areas that are related to the farming community are not subjected to the same abuses as those that are sold in the urban environment of Club row.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) mentioned breeding facilities and the conditions which unsold animals are likely to suffer. That is important. I hope that fines in relation to animal welfare will be part of the updating procedure that we discussed last Friday with regard to copyright in the video industry. I hope that similar penalties will be included. Like penalties, licence fees are also important. My hon. Friend discussed whether the introduction of an updated dog licence fee would give people food for thought before embarking on an impulse purchase which could result in animals suffering.
I am an active supporter of the Fund for the Replacement of Animals m Medical Experiments. If we can stop the sale of animals in street markets, that will do much to assist the removal of such creatures from the hands of those who wish to carry out animal experiments. Many animals are purchased for that purpose from people who steal domestic pets and then sell them in markets. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) about licence fees for animals need careful consideration because they are relevant to the maintaining of pets, and every pet lover must appreciate that. We undersand that the elderly especially need pets, so there must be some exceptions to the rule. The welfare of animals is a burning issue that is close to the hearts of the majority of all hon. Members.
I welcome the Bill, and I am pleased that it should receive its Third Reading today and pass rapidly into law.

Mr. Banks: Britain is a nation of animal lovers, and I firmly believe that the Bill will be applauded by the vast majority of pet owners. Many pet owners look after their animals with great care and affection. We have an international reputation for our care of defenceless animals, and this Bill will enhance it. I hope that we shall be in a stronger position to influence other countries in the European Community and beyond so that proper attention is paid to the care and protection of animals, who rely on the human race for their survival.

Mr. Mellor: This Bill will be an extremely useful measure. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Drake (Miss Fookes) on her initiative in taking up this matter, and I congratulate Lord Houghton on persevering in introducing the Bill three times during this Parliament. I am glad that the Government have played a part in assisting its progress.
The co-operation between Lord Houghton, who had a distinguished Front Bench career in this House for the Labour party for many years, and my hon. Friend the Member for Drake in promoting the Bill, shows that animal welfare does not have a monopoly of concern in any one party.

Mr. Foulkes: Hear, hear.

Mr. Mellor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me, because animal welfare has concerned many hon. Members. I spoke in the House on the matter before I took up my present responsibilities. Electoral bidding games


between parties on the subject of animal welfare are not helpful. When we discuss what is likely to be the next major animal reform measure during the next Parliament —the reform of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876—we must strike the correct balance between the rights of animals and the development of medical science. That matter cannot profitably be part of party politics. I hope that in the forthoming election we shall not see a great deal of that, but we shall see.
I have already made it clear why the Government feel that they can now support the Bill. The ease with which it has gone through Parliament this Session shows the general support that it has commanded and demonstrates the deep-seated passion and concern towards animals which are traditionally shown in this country, and which we in the Government share. As in all these emotive areas, while caring, we need to keep a sense of reason and proportion. However, where the Government are satisfied that a measure can be taken that will alleviate animal suffering, or more generally improve the quality of animal life, I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will support it.
It is fair to say that the Government's record in this respect is good. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has taken considerable strides forward in farm animal welfare through the work of the Farm Animal Welfare Council and other means. The Secretary of State for the Environment, through the Wildlife and Countryside Act, through work to prohibit the importation of whale products and through proposals on seals that are now under consideration, has taken animal welfare a good way forward.
We in the Home Office have used the last few years profitably to work for the Council of Europe convention on animal experiments, the work on which I was glad to be able to tell the House at Question Time yesterday was concluded last week, clearing the way not only for legislation in Britain that will go far beyond establishing minimum standards, but for high common standards throughout Europe. We realise that we are not an island in these matters. It is important that international standards should be raised as well. Our advisory committee on

animal experiments produced a useful report on the British experience. I am confident that it will lead to a major reform of the 1876 Act that will come about before long. I hope that that will be welcomed by those like my hon. Friend, who work so long and hard on animal welfare.

Miss Fookes: How much longer are we to wait for the new arrangements on animal experiments? I recall that it was a distinct pledge in the election manifesto, and we have now been in office for four years.

Mr. Mellor: As I said, this matter has been proceeding through the Council of Europe and the convention was concluded only last week. However, the White Paper is in an advanced state of preparation. As I told the House yesterday, it is near to being published. I hope that when it is my hon. Friend will see how much hard work has gone into providing a measure which broadens, widens and strengthens protection for animals, for instance to embrace the establishments that sell animals for vivisection purposes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) mentioned, and which also recognises the need for continuing medical advance and research—which I would have thought most people involved in this argument would recognise is a vital dimension to the problem. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Member for Drake sees the document in due course she will appreciate the amount of hard work that has gone into it.
The Government have reached the conclusion that however hard local authorities try to uphold the 1951 Act properly with regard to street markets selling pets, they face an impossible task by the nature of street markets. It is no criticism of many of the stall holders to say that we have reached the point where it is difficult for any such sale to go forward according to standards that we all now accept must be maintained.
It is for that reason that we believe that the time is right for this measure. If, as I hope, it receives its Third Reading today, it will be a most useful addition to the considerable body of animal welfare law that is already on the statute book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Age Discrimination Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

2 pm

Mr. George Foulkes: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Bill although I am naturally disappointed and concerned that time is unlikely to permit a Second Reading to take place. I do not want to belittle the Pet Animals Act 1951 (Amendment) Bill—indeed, I supported it and sat in my place and agreed with it —but I sometimes have the feeling that this animal-loving country is more concerned sometimes about the plight of animals than about the plight of some of our fellow human beings. This Bill is concerned with the plight of some of our fellows.
The motivation behind the Bill is a feeling that I have had for some time, in common with organisations that are concerned with the elderly, especially Age Concern. There is a general awareness of the existence of sex discrimination and of racial discrimination. That was not always so. There is now such an awareness because of the campaign of some of my colleagues and of many people outside the House to bring these matters to public attention. However, there is not a great awareness of the amount of discrimination that exists against people because of their age.
The purpose of the Bill is, first, to bring that discrimination to the attention of the House and the wider public and, secondly, to try to do something about it. Why is there not much awareness of the problem? Why has no legislation been introduced to deal with it as there has been for other forms of discrimination? I think that it is because the discrimination lies principally in employment. It has been exacerbated by the enormous increase in the level of unemployment over the past four years. With high levels of unemployment, more and more examples of age discrimination come to our attention.
It is understandable that the media have concentrated on youth unemployment and the dreadful plight of young people leaving school without a hope of getting a job, but there are some tragic cases of unemployed people in their 50s and, as I have found from the many letters that I have received, in their 40s.
There are many myths about aging and we tend to stereotype old people. If I needed any proof, corroboration or justification for bringing the Bill before the House, it was amply provided when the Bill was published. Its publication was given relatively small publicity in some newspapers. Since then I have received a flood of correspondence about the measure. You are familiar, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with some of the causes that I speak about in the House—you have the unfortunate task of listening to many of my interventions and speeches on various matters—but you will be surprised to hear that all the letters that I received on this subject were in support of the Bill. That is not always the case with the issues that I raise. However, that provides corroboration that there is a need for legislation. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall quote from some of the letters that I have received. I do not expect the Government to accept the Bill, but I hope that they will give some consideration to the general problem that lies behind it.
The Bill would give power to the Equal Opportunities Commission to deal with age discrimination just as it deals

with sex discrimination. The commission would draw up a list — a prescribed list, which is not a particularly popular phrase in my party these days — of practices which are discriminatory. That would happen after consultation with the various interests involved. It would go from the commission to the Minister — or the Secretaries of State, as the case may be, because the provisions would also apply to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—for consideration and then to this House for approval. There would, therefore, be scrutiny of those matters which were accepted generally as discrimination against people because of their age.
Once the list had been agreed, the commission would have power to investigate complaints from individuals or groups of any unfair discrimination against them on the ground of their age, and, if possible, conciliate or otherwise adjudicate on those complaints. The Bill says that the areas that should be covered—obviously others could be added; I am referring to those that must be covered if the Bill became an Act — would, first, be employment, which is the main source of discrimination; secondly, appointments to public bodies; and thirdly, the portrayal of people or groups of people in the media according to their age.
Perhaps I should deal, before giving examples, with the question of practicability; the Minister and his advisers may believe that what I propose would not be a practical proposition. I argue that it would, for two reasons. The first is that we have an excellent precedent in sex discrimination. I understand that the provisions there are working well and that there is a general understanding of what is meant by sex discrimination; that there is an understanding of the kind of complaints that can be raised and an acceptance that they are being dealt with fairly. The second is that there are international precedents. It has been done for some time in the United States—certainly since 1967 in the sphere of work — and somewhat similar provisions exist in Sweden and Norway. I hope therefore that the Minister will not advance the case that it is not a practical proposition.
Let us consider some of the tragedies that are arising because of the high level of unemployment and the way in which people are being discriminated against, particularly in work. A Glasgow lady wrote saying:
My husband, who is unemployed, applied for a job. We were told that a company directive had been issued banning the recruitment of staff aged over 35.
I see your brow beetling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My brow beetles at that, too, because it would exclude me from consideration. It is amazing that companies should be saying that people are too old at 35.
A man wrote to me from Glasgow saying:
Since I was made redundant at 51 years of age due to company liquidation"—
which was not his fault, he being a skilled and able person of whom one could not say that he was of no use and was not being employed for that reason—
I have compiled a massive dossier of information which clearly illustrates that career development opportunity is slashed progressively from age 45 until even simple job opportunity virtually ceases at age 60.
A man from Herefordshire wrote:
I read that industry is short of skilled and experienced workers. Young people are considered to be lacking in skill and experience, and those who have it are considered too old. No wonder industry is suffering.
A man in Esher said:


It seems a waste, when there is so much to be done, that I should remain idle for what amounts to 25 per cent. of my working life.
It is a waste of skills and talent that this country should and could be using.
A man from Trowbridge wrote:
I have colleagues who are deemed 'unemployable' at 48. Whilst it is right and proper for people to show concern over youth unemployment, I feel that the over 45s deserve more publicity.
The Minister who will be replying to the debate comes from the Department of Health and Social Security. He may be interested in a point that was raised by a man from Buckinghamshire. He said:
I wonder whether you could also give some thought to the fact that since 1978"—
this is not a party political point—
the DHSS notifies an employer if he has an employee still working over the age of 65. In many cases the employer is under the impression that the employee is younger—and the result is either extreme embarassment or dismissal.
Yet that person has been doing, and could continue to do, a good job.
I received a letter from a chartered engineer who states:
I have campaigned unremittingly over the past eleven years through all relevant agencies".
He has been trying. He contacted the Manpower Services Commission, the CBI, the Professional and Executive Register and the Equal Opportunities Commission, which is the body that I say should have some power to deal with this. He also contacted local and central Government asking for legislation against what he described as
this growing cancer which is creating a class of industrial untouchables.
A number of people have contrasted their circumstances with those of Mr. Ian MacGregor, who does not seem to have found age a problem. I am not too happy about Mr. MacGregor's appointments to the Coal Board or the British Steel Corporation, not because of his age, but because of the task that he has been asked to carry out. He has been brought in to carry out an offensive task. It is interesting, however, that the Government considered that his age was not a barrier and that at the age of 70 he is able to carry out the task.
I wonder why he has been able to obtain a public appointment while there are many people who have retired at the usual age, or perhaps earlier, but who would like to continue in public service as justices of the peace, on health boards and all types of public bodies. That is my second area of discrimination. They find not just that they are too old to work, but that they are too old to be appointed to such bodies. For the rest of their lives—it could be one third of their lives—these opportunities are not open to them. It is seen as the fag end of their lives.
I do not wish to give too many examples because it would not be appropriate, but I assure the House that I have received many more. However, I wish to raise one somewhat different example. It comes from a 23-year-old college graduate. That seems amazing. I am sure that hon. Members will ask, "How on earth can he be discriminated against on grounds of age?" He wrote:
You may think, at first glance, that this has little to do with age discrimination until I tell you that all too many employers of graduates to which I have been applying now set the ridiculously low age limit of 23 for entry to their graduate training schemes. Yes, you can be too old at 23, let alone 55! I assume that this deplorably low age limit is calculated to exclude the long-term unemployed graduate (two years without

a permanent job is now very far from uncommon among perfectly able graduates generally), on the presumption that if a graduate leaves university at 21 … and has not found a permanent job by the age of 23, he cannot possibly be worth much to any employer.
That is amazing. Someone may go to college or university later in life, graduate, and then find that he cannot gain entry to some of the graduate courses that exist. It is an unusual example and, although there may be many more such cases, it seemed strange to me. That is another example of age discrimination about which something should be done.
A further illustration is provided by a letter that I received from Teddington. It says:
Even in my own circle, two first class workers … have been going through this nightmare for over a year. In fact one friend, a top secretary with first class c.v. and references, whose company folded up"—
so it was no fault of hers that she was unemployed—
was recently told by a young girl of about 22 working in one of the employment bureaux, 'we consider anyone over 40 is over the hill, you really are wasting your time coming in'.
That is a frightening thought. The letter continues:
She is attractive, healthy, competent and 48 (hardly one foot in the grave)
and
if you are male, and over 50, forget it and go dig your grave.
That would include a great many people here. The letter also states:
Those fortunate enough to be in full employment and in safe jobs, have no conception what it is like to be the victim of this disgraceful discrimination. I personally know that certain people in my … area … have become utterly demoralised and are convinced … that they are, and will remain, on the scrapheap forever.
That demoralisation now extends to many people.
It is entirely wrong that arbitrary age limits should be given for appointments. Time and again, advertisements prescribe age limits for applicants. That should not be allowed. People should compete on equal terms and have the oppportunity to prove themselves in interviews or assessments irrespective of their age.
In addition to discimination in employment and appointments to public bodies, there is the problem of stereotyping by the media. Often false assumptions are made about age. People are stereotyped as senile because they are old and quaint or less diverse in their personalities, aptitudes and interests just because they are retired. If there is persistent stereotyping of any group, especially the old, an individual or a group representing such individuals should be able to take the matter to the Equal Opportunities Commission.
I could give many more examples. I must confess that I am not happy at having to seek legislation in this area. I should greatly prefer the problem to be solved without that. With the current high unemployment, however, many older people and some not so old are being blackmailed into early retirement, which may mean poverty for many, because of the lack of jobs and the moral pressure on them to make way for young people.
Jobs should be provided for all who wish to work. There is plenty of work to be done in caring for the sick, the elderly and the handicapped, in public works projects to get rid of dampness in houses, to build new homes, schools and hospitals and to improve other facilities. There is work to be done in improving our public transport service, in electrifying the railways, and in many other areas. There is no reason why people should be out of work.
If there is to be more leisure time, our employment policy should be to spread that time evenly throughout people's working lives by means of a shorter working week or a shorter working year, not by forcing people unnecessarily on to the scrapheap, as the dole queue is so eloquently described by many people. While that situation exists I argue that there is a need for some legislation. That is why I have brought the Bill before the House today, and I hope that the House will consider giving it a Second Reading.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I noted with particular interest that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) said that the provisions of his Bill apply to all of us here, and then went on to speak about safe jobs. Some of his colleagues who have not been reselected might take a different view.

Mr. Foulkes: Quite.

Mr. Finsberg: Irrespective of the fate of the Bill, it would be a pity if the hon. Gentleman were to go on basing his campaign on one or two of the things he said.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of there being something wrong when people who reach retiring age may be regarded as being too old to do such things as serving as justices of the peace. He will know that Parliament took a decision on the age of judges, magistrates and justices of the peace, and I imagine that he would not wish to question it at this stage.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of a person who wrote to him because he was out of a job after the liquidation of a firm. I am sure that he is a perfectly good person, with good experience and qualifications, but we know of companies which have been forced into liquidation by the actions of their employees, so we must be careful not to generalise or to build up an entire case on what may not be the right foundation.
The Bill proposes to make unlawful discrimination on grounds of age against a person or groups of persons. It seeks to give the Equal Opportunities Commission power to investigate complaints about discrimination on grounds of age, to conciliate where appropriate, and to make recommendations on the activities to which the measure should apply.
At present, there are, as far as I can find, only three areas of activity specified in the Bill, but there are powers to extend its provisions — subject ultimately to Parliament's approval. Therefore, the Bill is potentially of very wide application, and the area of activity already specified would involve the Home Office and the Department of Employment, and almost certainly nearly every other Government Department would have an interest.
I shall not go through the detailed clauses at this stage but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the Bill as at present drafted would be ineffective. Some of the terms that the hon. Gentleman uses are not defined — for example, "unjustifiable". That term would be a key element in any litigation. Further, and perhaps even more important, since the proposed legislation gives the Equal Opportunities Commission no power to impose penalties for breaches of the law, it is very uncertain how it could be enforced.
The Equal Opportunities Commission is relevant because it is the cornerstone of the hon. Gentleman's case. The commission was established, under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, to help to enforce that legislation and to promote equality of opportunity between the sexes generally. The Act applies to discrimination against women and men and it defines two kinds of sex discrimination, known as direct and indirect discrimination.
Direct sex discrimination arises where a person treats a woman, on the grounds of her sex, less favourably than he treats or would treat a man. Indirect sex discrimination consists of treatment which may be described as equal in the formal sense as between the sexes but which is discriminatory in its effect on one sex, in that the proportion of women who can comply with a condition or requirement is considerably smaller than the proportion of men who can do so.
For example, if an employer were to impose a requirement that all clerks—not Clerks of this House—must be 6ft tall, a woman refused a job because of her height would be able to make out a case of indirect sex discrimination. I shall not go into the matter of whether clerks should have beards. That, again, might be a source of indirect discrimination. To prove a case of sex discrimination, it has to be shown that the requirement is unjustifiable.
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 makes discrimination on grounds of sex unlawful in certain prescribed areas—employment, education and the provision of goods, facilities and services. It does not, for example, extend to discriminatory treatment in the allocation of social security benefits, retirement ages, taxation, or those concessionary travel schemes which are based on age.
I suggest that it is unrealistic to assume that the commission, which is concerned solely with discrimination on grounds of sex, could readily adapt itself to identify and provide remedies for other forms of discrimination. The main purpose of the Sex Discrimination Act, and of the commission, was to remove obstacles that prevent women from having equal opportunities. Discrimination on grounds of age, which is certainly another highly sensitive area, as the hon. Gentleman said, is quite different in character, and could not easily be combined with the commission's existing functions.
The commission operates with a maximum staff of 166. Its approved budget for 1982–83 totals some £3·07 million, of which approximately half is spent on staff costs and half on overheads expenditure, legal expenses, research and publicity. Any extension of the commission's powers would require extra resources, in terms of finance and staff, and there is no prospect that those could be made available.
We need to examine where, under the Sex Discrimination Act, the EOC may undertake formal investigations for any purpose connected with the carrying out of its statutory dates. Where unlawful sex discrimination is found, the commission may issue a nondiscrimination notice requiring such practices to cease. Under the hon. Gentleman's Bill, however, the most the commission could do would be to make recommendations. There is no suggestion that more formal sanctions would be available to the commission if discrimination on grounds of age were found to exist. The extent of discrimination on grounds of age is impossible to quantify, although I note with concern and interest the cases that the


hon. Gentleman retailed to us. It therefore follows that no assessment can be made of the extra resources required by the commission to pursue those general investigations.
In the Bill there is no suggestion that complainants should have the right to bring a case of discrimination before the courts, and it must be assumed that if the commission failed to resolve a complaint by conciliation discrimination would continue. Under the Sex Discrimination Act, those who believe that they have been the victims of sex discrimination have the right to take a complaint to an industrial tribunal in employment cases, or to a county court in all other cases.
The commission may assist a complainant, or prospective complainant, and the assistance that the commission may afford includes giving advice, seeking a settlement, and arranging for legal advice, assistance or representation. It is not the task of the commission to investigate all complaints of sex discrimination. Nor does the commission have any special standing before a court or tribunal in relation to any proceedings in which it is assisting an individual. Where an application to an industrial tribunal has been made, ACAS has a duty to consider whether it can help the parties to reach a settlement without the need for a tribunal hearing.
In 1981, the commission received about 3,100 inquiries about the Sex Discrimination Act, 245 of which led to requests for assistance to bring a case of unlawful discrimination. The commission gave advice or legal assistance in 143 of those cases.
Again, it is not possible to assess the number of complaints of discrimination on grounds of age which might be directed to the commission under the Bill, nor the number of additional staff required to investigate the complaints and to achieve conciliation.
The commission is required to make an annual report on its activities under the Sex Discrimination Act, and the Home Secretary is required to lay a copy of the report before each House of Parliament and to cause it to be published. The Bill does not provide for that procedure.

If the EOC failed to resolve a complaint by conciliation, discrimination would continue unless the complainant sought redress in the civil courts. Complainants—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday 13 May.

PROHIBITION OF FEMALE CIRCUMCISION (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Not moved.

DOMESTIC CONTENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

RATING (CARAVAN SITES) (SCOTLAND) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [29 April].

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.

TELEVISING OF SELECT COMMITTEES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That Sir Anthony Grant be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Mr. Ivan Lawrence be added to the Committee. — [Mr. Philip Holland, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Trunk Road (Aire Valley)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this debate. I shall briefly sketch in the background to the proposed Aire valley trunk road. The original proposal, put forward in 1968, was to build a motorway. There followed 14 years of indecision, argument and, for the areas directly affected by the motorway proposal, blight.
In 1978, following a tumultuous public inquiry, the motorway proposal was withdrawn and the trunk road proposal substituted for it. The trunk road was designed to relieve local congestion on the A629 Keighley to Skipton trunk road. I was critical of and opposed to the motorway proposal, but I supported the less intrusive trunk road, which I think will have more beneficial local effects.
Representations by me and local people persuaded the then Minister of Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), to produce the less intrusive trunk road proposal and he met residents of Stockbridge—in marked contrast to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), who is to reply to the debate.
Following the public inquiry on the trunk road proposal, the Minister announced the go-ahead in May 1982 and said in a press release in June 1983:
I am anxious to maintain good progress on the Airedale scheme.
I am sure that is right, but in a parliamentary reply last month to me the Government announced that the road
should be open to traffic in April 1987."—[Official Report, 28 April 1983; Vol. 41. c. 392.]
That is far too long a delay. I recognise that statutory procedures have to be followed, but I urge the Minister to proceed with the construction of the road as rapidly as possible to ensure, as was promised in an Adjournment debate in the previous Parliament, that the Keighley to Kildwick section will be consructed and opened first to relieve local traffic.
Those living alongside the existing trunk road have to put up with enormous difficulties. There is noise and vibration and dangers in crossing the road, because of the considerable volume of traffic, particularly at Utley, Steeton and Eastburn in my constituency, but also at other places alongside the existing trunk road.
The opening of the Keighley to Kildwick section of the new road will bring relief to those residents and better access for materials for the rest of the project. I suspect that most materials will be coming from the Dales quarries to the north. The opening of the top section of the road as was assured previously would also provide easier access to Airedale general hospital because, as the Minister is no doubt aware, the hospital serves Keighley, Eastburn, Steeton, and indeed a much wider area. I am sure that the volume of traffic on the existing trunk road must cause delays in obtaining access to the hospital. That could prove dangerous if not fatal. It is important that an assurance about the construction of the Keighley — Kildwick section and its opening to traffic as early as possible should be given now, rather than waiting for the whole BingleyKeighley-Kildwick section to be completed to allow access to traffic.
At a time when unemployment in the Keighley constituency since May 1979 has increased from 4·5 per cent. to more than 14 per cent. the construction of the road should provide many much needed jobs in the area to reduce unemployment. Will the Minister also consider using the Aire valley railway for the movement of construction materials, as the goods yard at Keighley is under-utilised? While the road is in the initial stages of construction the use of the Aire valley railway might help to reduce the congestion that construction might create. While I realise that statutory procedures must be followed, I urge the Minister to make the most rapid progress possible in the construction of the road because of the difficulties created for those people living alongside the existing trunk routes.
One area seriously affected by blight was the Stockbridge area of Keighley. I was sorry that the Minister felt unable to meet residents on a recent visit to north Yorkshire, as she must have passed within a few miles of the Stockbridge area. It is important that Ministers should listen to representations directly from people who have experienced the difficulties. I know that hon. Members try their best to represent their constituents' views but there is no substitute for direct representation.
About 100 houses were blighted in 1968 and continued to be blighted until the decision was finally made in 1982. I have been concerned with those houses that were sold off to the road construction unit, which were in some instances controlled by the local authority, and with the fact that the Government did not provide sufficient help to the tenants of those houses when they were moved or were requested to move from the area to other local authority houses, once the decision had been made to put them on the market.
I am particularly concerned in this debate with those houses that have been continuously owner-occupied ever since the plan for the motorway was first announced in 1968. The road proposals have been the focus of continuous attention and have been spotlighted nationally. Now that the decision has been made to provide the line for the trunk road, those who have been living there in their own houses since 1968 feel that they have been forgotten and ignored. The Government have offered £10,000 to the west Yorkshire metropolitan county council to assist with private street works. That followed an initiative by the Labour Government, following my representations, which will be of considerable help in revitalising the Stockbridge area. I welcome the Government's offer to the metropolitan county council.
However, there is still a serious deficiency regarding the houses that have been owner-occupied throughout the period of blight, which were built in the 1930s and, therefore, do not qualify for repair grants. Repair grants apply only to pre-1919 houses. The blight has been created by successive Governments, not by those living in the houses. It is outrageous that the Government appear to be washing their hands of the matter by refusing to consider the houses for repair grants.
I wish to quote a letter from Mrs. Greenwood, one of the residents. She says:
I am writing to ask how it is we cannot have a grant for our house. At the start of enquiries I wrote to the Construction Unit at Harrogate and the reply was, not to spend any unnecessary money, so we did as they said. We have had a third of our roof done as it was raining into the front room. We are now on Social Benefit, so we have no hope.


My husband had a major operation eleven years ago and has not worked since. We are now seventy two so I suppose that's it.
There is a clear sign that the road construction unit told the owner-occupiers that they should not spend too much on repairs. That made sense because they were in no position to argue the case and were not to know that the next visitor—as one writer said to me—would be the bulldozer.
Last night I visited a constituent who is another fairly typical person caught up in that situation. She decided to stay in her house because it was her home. Mrs. Manx is aged 70. The roof leaked and she had half of it repaired. It needs finishing. She applied to the local authority for a grant. When the local authority representative visited the house she was told that she needed new windows, a new bath, a new toilet, new drainpipes and rewiring. She expected to receive a grant. However, she has recently had a letter from the local authority giving the correct position. It says:
Unfortunately the age of the house also excludes it from a Repairs Grant i.e. it must be built before 1919. Unless there are special concessions given to these properties they are outside the scope of the present House Renovation Grant system.
I ask the Minister, although it is not her direct responsibility, to make strong representations to the Department of the Environment to make a concession for those properties. The local authority apologised for the error in suggesting that a grant was available.
Mrs. Manx has lived in her home for 32 years. Her husband, who has since died, felt that it was their home and that they should not sell it to the road construction unit. He wanted to stay in an area that he liked. As it was the Government who created the blight in the first place, that was a reasonable point of view to take. The lady is now penalised by the Government refusing to consider the possibility of applying repair grants to those houses.
I wrote to the Minister at the Department of the Environment, and on 23 March he said that to meet a delegation of representatives of the people affected by the blight would not be "fruitful". I have written to him again asking for a meeting, and I am still waiting for a reply.
I wish to conclude with extracts from letters from residents that illustrate the position. I want to emphasise the importance of repair grants for those who have, quite legitimately, delayed repairs because of the blight, and who now seek a concession from the Government for repair grants. Mr. and Mrs. Rozga wrote:
After reading the questions you kindly asked on our behalf, we feel that government departments seem to think they have every right to ruin people's lives, then walk away and forget … now 15 years later repairs to properties that are essential i.e., roofs, windows, guttering, etc. can no longer be afforded at today's high prices. Unfortunately for us, Mr. Cryer, we do not fall into the category of average wage (£100 a week). Two years ago, I was rendered unfit for work owing to a stroke due to unnecessary anxiety caused by the evil administration of government departments. I am now the proud owner of what we laughingly call invalidity pension (£32·49), so we cannot be blamed for feeling there is no justice in this government. I would now like to tell you, my husband has two weeks ago been struck down with a heart attack and at this very moment is being fitted with a pacemaker. I would also like to add, my husband is a chronic diabetic and has just received his redundancy notice from work.
Mrs. Boulby of 4 Hallows road wrote:
I think it is unfair that the people of Stockbridge are not going to be allowed Grants, to get their houses back into condition, that they were in, 14 years ago, before the Department

of the Environment decided to put a motorway through our homes. I personally started to build an extension on to my home, but because of the blight it was left. Now I am a one-parent family and have no finance to finish my house off and to bring it up to standard. As I am one of the people who stayed in my own home while all these proposals of motorway planning were going ahead, I feel I should be compensated and should qualify for a house grant.
Mr. David Burridge wrote:
During the period of blight no one would spend money on major maintenance to their homes when the next visitor might be a bulldozer.
Now after the lifting of blight, we find that major works are now becoming essential but that costs have escalated enormously during the restricted period … My own house badly needs a new roof and other major outside works to bring it back to a standard which would have existed had this blight not occurred.
Those requests to remedy the consequences of 14 years of blight seem reasonable. It was logical for house owners to delay repairs or do the minimum. If there had been no blight, repairs would have been undertaken in the ordinary course of events. The Government created the blight and they should remove the poison that they have spread in areas such as Stockbridge. It is obvious that other areas will be affected and the Government should consider them.
The Government constantly express anxiety about owner-occupiers. They should prove that anxiety by giving concessions for repair grants for post-1919 houses where owner-occupiers have lived throughout the blight. Moreover, that would help by creating jobs, which must be a good thing when we face a dole queue of some 3 million people. In my constituency, the dole queues have increased from 4·5 per cent. to more than 14 per cent. and now 4,000 people chase about 80 vacancies each month. The case that I have made is reasonable and I hope that the Minister can answer it sympathetically.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) for this opportunity to discuss once again the Aire valley trunk road. As he rightly acknowledged, many of his questions are for my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, not me, but I shall do my best to answer them.
I confirm the Government's commitment to building the road. It is an important part of our road building programme in Yorkshire and Humberside. The only reason why I could not find time to meet the hon. Gentleman's constituents on the day that he mentioned was that I had a long meeting with the West Yorkshire metropolitan council and Bradford metropolitan district council about that route. Moreover, I had to be back in the House on 24 February. It was crucial to have that meeting about this section, which will be necessary to make the Aire valley trunk route work. The hon. Gentleman knows that. He also knows that I have offered to meet him and his constituents and am waiting for a date for such a meeting. There is, therefore, no lack of concern on my part for the hon. Gentleman's constituents in Stockbridge.
The Government regard the improvement of the local environment for those who live alongside the A650 and A629 trunk roads in the Aire valley as a major priority. We look to the new trunk road not only to provide relief for those who live there but to improve access to industry and communications between towns and villages that at present suffer from traffic congestion. We have long


recognised it as an area of great environmental sensitivity. The provision of the new road is an important factor that many industrialists take into account when considering relocation, so its completion has high priority.
We have made real progress towards the provision of a new route. The motorway proposal died a long time ago. It has taken some time to confirm the line for a substantial length of the road because of the necessary and important statutory procedures and the consultations that precede them. The 1975 public inquiry had to be abandoned following disruption but, since then, with modified highway procedures we have made good progress. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman was anxious that we should make good progress and that there were no problems of disruption at the 1980 public inquiry. It is crucial to ensure that everyone gets a fair hearing so that proper account is taken of all views before decisions are made. That means that opponents of schemes must listen to proponents of schemes and to those who put forward alternative proposals.
The decisions made following the inspector's report mean that a line order has been made from Kildwick to Keighley and from Keighley to Bingley. A small section of the existing road will be used to bridge the gap. I shall deal with those two sections, but not the third because I shall not have enough time. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Kildwick to Keighley section will be the first to be built. We recognise the need to remove through traffic from the communities of Utley, Steeton, and Eastburn. They lie alongside the existing trunk road and suffer from severe traffic congestion, with the unfortunate consequences of noise and pollution. The new road will contribute markedly to a reduction in accidents along the existing road and in the valley generally.
I hope that the side road orders for that section of the road will be published next month. They will show how we propose to deal with the highways and private accesses that cross the trunk road. At about the same time we shall hold local exhibitions at Steeton and Cross Hills, with staff from my regional office present to answer questions. The draft compulsory purchase order will be published in a few months. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot say now whether we shall need a public inquiry, but our present estimate is that work will begin in the spring of 1985. That seems a long way off, but if we do not have a public inquiry work may start sooner. However, the precise date depends upon the completion of statutory procedures. The construction period is estimated to be two years.
We shall carry out advance works on the Keighley to Crossflatts section. We hope to begin construction of the section in the summer of 1986, but before construction can begin to the east of Crossflatts we must carry out advance works at Bingley. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have already published draft proposals to enable us to divert the canal and to rebuild Park road bridge to ensure that construction traffic for the main contract will pass beneath it and be kept out of the town centre. If we can use the railway economically to transport materials for the building of the road, we shall do so. We always examine that possibility, but we must get on as quickly as possible. There was great interest in an exhibition at Bingley arts centre, where it seemed that the local people wish the road to be built. The draft compulsory purchase order for the advance works will be published next month. If a public inquiry is needed — I hope not — it can be arranged before the end of the year.
At present, we are aiming to begin the advance works before the end of 1984, but that date and the construction of the section to the east of Crossflatts depend upon a decision on the route to the east of Bingley, but we do not intend to terminate the route at a roundabout in the town centre.
The further section is the one on which we have come to no firm conclusions because the original proposals between Bingley and Baildon would have damaged the environment unacceptably. That was the inspector's view, and our decision recognised it. We have made a decision on the line order, but we are looking into proposals to take the new road to Cottingley Bar. However, there are many wider issues. That was the subject of my meeting on the day in which, regrettably, there were not enough hours so that I could go to Stockbridge as well.
Speaking of Stockbridge and the help that we have had from West Yorkshire county council and the Bradford metropolitan district, they are working hard with officials from my Department at the moment on the connection between the length of the Airedale route so far approved and the proposed Shipley eastern bypass. We have done much useful work. I am impressed by the considerable thought that the local people, both councillors and officials, have given to the problems and how we might resolve them.
It is clear that there will be no easy solutions. The problems are complex and there are many areas of environmental sensitivity. I am conscious of the need for a decision as quickly as possible, as the hon. Gentleman said. I hope to make a statement later this year at the conclusion of the discussions between the West Yorkshire county council, the Bradford metropolitan district council and my officials. The effect of the road around Keighley has concerned me ever since I came to the Department. There is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has pursued, as have other colleagues in the House who have links with that part of the world, the interests of the people in the Aire valley route. We know that properties in the Stockbridge area of Keighley were acquired under the blight provisions. The owners of those houses asked the Department if it could purchase them. They were affected by the earlier proposals, but they will not now be affected by the orders for the Aire valley trunk road.
The hon. Gentleman concentrated not on those houses but on the ones that the Department was not asked to buy at the time. I understand that people who were thinking that their house was going to go thought that it was not worth doing very much. That is the onus of the hon. Gentleman's case. However, there is no doubt that if a building is not purchased under blight provisions by a Government Department, there has to be a modicum of general repair to it. I have no wish to be harsh. I shall look into the cases of all the people whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned, provided that he gives me their full addresses. Some of them may be in Aireworth rather than Stockbridge. According to where they are, I do not know whether it will be possible to help, but I shall look into the matter.
Once we have removed blight from an area — that was done when the motorway proposal was dropped—there is no basis for compensation. We dealt with the blight by buying houses that the owners requested us to buy. Some of the houses of which the hon. Gentleman


spoke may not be in the area from which the blight was lifted. I must have further details before I can help him, but I shall seek to help.

Mr. Cryer: I shall be happy to provide the addresses. All the houses are in the Stockbridge area and were affected by blight. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for considering the matter. Will she assure me that she will bring to the full attention of the Department of the Environment the question of repairs grants, because this is not compensation but simply an extension of existing eligibility?

Mrs. Chalker: I had better not stray on to territory that I do not know as well as I know transport territory. I know from my constituency experience that there is a problem with repairs grants for houses that were built after 1919. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I do not know whether anything can be done. If those houses were in the Stockbridge area, once the decision to drop the motorway was taken in 1978, it was the responsibility of those people to keep them in good repair if they could. I realise that that may sound harsh. I do not intend it to sound like that. I intend to make the House well aware that there are individual responsibilities attached to owning houses, whatever one's age, and that the charge cannot always be put on the public purse.
As I have said, I shall consider whether there is anything that we can do. Now that we are going ahead with the Aire valley route, it is important that we resolve the outstanding difficulties.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the increase that has been made to the special payment for the cost of street works. We recently informed the West Yorkshire county council that the payment will be increased to £10,000. That sum will be in addition to any frontage payments that may be made in the area. I understand from the county council that it recently included these works in its capital programme for the current year, 1983–84. I am sure that many of the residents will be pleased when the works are carried out.
I am well aware of the need to get on with the job of building the road but I know that there are ancillary problems. Although not all the problems are for me, I shall seek to intercede to ascertain whether anything can be done. I hope that the further statutory procedures can go through quickly, but that obviously depends on whether we need public inquiries at all stages. Whatever happens, it is important that we get relief for those who live along the routes in question. There is a continuing need to produce an effective engineering solution, not for the short term but for the long term, which we must reconcile with the local environment, and I shall give all speed to doing that.
The Question having been proposed after half-past Two o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at one minute past Three o'clock.